tvashtarkatena

Thank you for your typically valuable contribution, Petey. Must be time to arrange your fingernail clipping jars now.

SCOTUS got this one right, I believe. I believe they did, too, despite the inherent hate contained in their message. I would be interested to know what your students think of the case... I'll spring this one on them next time. Also the American flag flap in CA.

The school banned the banner. Hence the case. But the kids took the banner off-campus. School "control" ends => free speech => end of story. hee hee

The school banned the banner. Hence the case.

SCOTUS got this one right, I believe.

School sponsored, off campus function. The banner holders are students.

except mine, which you've previously acknowledged, that is.

This is an exercise I've been giving college level immigrant students: If you were a Supreme Court Justice, would you allow or disallow the following: T shirt worn by a high school student at school Banner at an off campus high school sponsored function T shirt worn by a high school student at school

So, again, does anyone NOT agree with taxing the wealthy more as part of a solution to our national deficit problem? I have zero expectation of an adult answer from our conservative reps here...they never give a straight answer on anything, but you can't fault a guy for trying.

Please provide a properly cited link to support that statement.

And not presidential material. Not like Newt. Who also seems to be a 'nice guy'.

It's helpful to take historical context into consideration with SCOTUS decisions. 1942...hmmmm...that rings a bell....

did he applaud it, or just list it as an example of scotus' willingness to support a use of the commerce clause consistent w/ kk's demand for concrete proposals to deal w/ income inequality? I already knew all that SCOTUS stuff, but hey, now JayB does, too! What can I say? I just really feel strongly about the potential evils of home grown wheat....

One might argue that tough times are THE time to make profound changes.

BTW, considering your shitheel sources, I don't even look at your unreferenced graphs...unless I need to know what's happening in the Electric Sector, that is. Look up energy wedges. It's doable. Unless you're a fuckhead with a hidden agenda, of course.

I suspect he's a nice guy, but not presidential material...like Newt.

Bullshit alarm 1: China's rapidly becoming one of the world leaders in sustainable energy production. Yes, they're building a lot of coal plants...and they're also doing a lot of things we SHOULD be doing. Bullshit alarm 2: Who's talking about trillions of investment? No one. It would take only 60 billion to entirely upgrade our grid and increase its efficiency by 20% or more. Bullshit alarm 3: Gee, think we should spend on stuff that has a bang for the buck? WOW. Move over Newt! Smartest Kid In The Room comin' through! Bullshit alarm 4: No one is proposing reducing emissions to zero, nor is it necessary. GEE, THAT WOULD COST A LOT, WOULDN'T IT?

Despite his prodigious word counts, many of JayB's arguments are actually quite simple and nonsensical.

Safe to say at this point that taxing the rich more, although certainly an incomplete solution to so much long term inequity, is step one in restoring fairness to our economy. I don't think anyone here actually disagrees with that statement, right?

JayB's arguments, with the characteristic sophistry and verbosity stripped away: The problem's too big to solve. Ignore. It's obvious by now that warming is primarily caused by emissions, but reducing emissions won't reduce warming. Any money/effort you put into reducing emissions could be better spent elsewhere. If the oceans collapse due to acidification, or the icecaps sluff into the sea, just adapt to it.

Yup. I'd go wit dat.

I'm not sure you have much to do with that. He's pretty good on his own.

Congress can (and has) regulated an individual farmer's right to grow wheat for his own consumption (because it effects the overall supply, and therefore price, of wheat in general). And yes, this is from a SCOTUS ruling. Yeah, I think Congress can limit executive pay. I also think Obamacare is gonna pass muster, but hey, SCOTUS is always a crap shoot.

Any attempt by congress to legislate upper limits on compensate would go into court-gridlock and you damn-well know it. Tell us all again how smart you are. Aborted "graduate coursework", notwithstanding. I probably don't need to point out to anyone else here that legislative gridlock and violation of the constitution are two different things. There is no such thing as "court gridlock". Again, you're confusing the legislative process with the judicial. Unlike the legislature, courts follow strict procedures, and SCOTUS decisions on big issue often don't take long. Take Obamacare. Less than two years to a SCOTUS ruling (due this spring...arguments have already been heard). Compare that to the legislative process, which may never produce any result, and you'll find that's actually pretty fast. The "gridlock" you refer to only happens when a) courts reject a case, and throw it back to the legislature to resolve or b) the courts rule on a difficult issue...and throw it back to the legislature to resolve. Precedence regarding the Commerce Clause indicates that Congress could cap executive pay as long as it served a compelling public interest, just as it caps minimum wages on the lower end for the same.

Yes, it would be, as are minimum wage laws. Dumbshit.