when did i say i cared?

it's hilarious that he is in florida during the storm.


WE HAVE THE GOVERNOR'S HOUSE

There was a column yesterday about how this was the end of the Lieutenant Governor's political career. And then it became public that the reason she left the state was to be with her dying father. Unfortunately writing the column without the facts wasn't the end of the retarded journalist's career.

jerseyhoya wrote:There was a column yesterday about how this was the end of the Lieutenant Governor's political career. And then it became public that the reason she left the state was to be with her dying father. Unfortunately writing the column without the facts wasn't the end of the retarded journalist's career.

That should be a general rule.

jerseyhoya wrote:It's amazing that anyone cares about this.

The position of lieutenant governor has only been a feature of the governmental structure of NJ for 5 years.

I did not know that.

Also funny that one of the Dem senators yapping at Christie for being @ Disneyworld during the storm ... was doing so from somewhere in Florida.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It's amazing that anyone cares about this.

The position of lieutenant governor has only been a feature of the governmental structure of NJ for 5 years.

Yeah, with the gubernatorial attrition rate in this state, it's probably good to have a real elected constitutionally mandated back-up plan.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/01d2Nft6Chw?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/01d2Nft6Chw?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

george will thinks that public employees getting paid for their work properly is the 'biggest issue in this nation'. screw you. stay in washington and stick to discussing the game that is politics.

Are you talking about the one where he says there needs to be transparency of public worker's pensions in order to identify gross underfunding? Serious question (as in, I'm not baiting): forget the reflexive class warfare/public vs. private sector/jealousy stuff - is the solution always "raise taxes to cover compensation"? At what point does the compensation itself merit scrutiny?

VoxOrion wrote:Are you talking about the one where he says there needs to be transparency of public worker's pensions in order to identify gross underfunding? Serious question (as in, I'm not baiting): forget the reflexive class warfare/public vs. private sector/jealousy stuff - is the solution always "raise taxes to cover compensation"? At what point does the compensation itself merit scrutiny?

start simple, and practical: single out the unfunded & underfunded obligations for the various forms of state & local elected officials' deferred compensation. Scandal? You bet

Wouldn't legislation covering all of the above (requiring transparency) accomplish that? I don't think individual salaries of rank and file employees should be published, but what about non-salary benefits?

From a practical standpoint, you can't do what Will suggests - make municipalities sign off that they won't go after bailout money to cover over-promises - that's just ludicrous, they'll do it anyway and they'll more than likely get it, too. There has to be some middle ground that goes beyond protectionism-at-all-costs and rank jealousy from private sector types.

not sure why non-salary benefits are a bad thing. plus, workers in the pulic sector are, on average, less compensated for their years of experience and their education level, for whatever that's worth. i really don't see why some cleaning lady in the white house getting a pension and healthcare is a bigger issue than, i dont know, ALL THE OTHER issues. municipal workers have been getting cut left and right anyway. there was a momentary blip in public sector hiring due to the census, but everything has been fairly stagnant otherwise. it's not a big deal, and making it one is purely divisive and and obvious way to point out 'the bad guy' to the pitchforked mob.

but hey, i just had a 50k surgery for which i spent zero dollars. my insurance paid for it! i pay a percentage of that, but i would assume the masses would want me to pay for it all myself. because it's just not fair, amirite

anyway, scalia is a douche. just an utter, utter douche. in an interview:

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both?

Yes, yes. Sorry, to tell you that. ... But, you know, if indeed the current society has come to different views, that's fine. You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

So is he arguing that the constitution is out-of-date and meanignless to today's society as nothing more than a nice little document which is only useful for abstract political theory ideas? if so, i agree! or is he just being needlessly argumentative because he's not part of any of the people or groups that would be affected by him interpreting the constitution for the modern era, and thus doesnt give two craps about that sort of thing? we really MUST wonder what those landowners were thinking about while drafting that document. it is of vital importance.


fourteenth amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

rudy guliani, tom ridge, and a bunch of neocons were palling around with terrorists

Remember that "deem and pass" thing from the health care debate last year? When Republicans lost their minds and called it "worse than Watergate"

Guess what?

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/demon-pass-how-the-new-house-rules-are-like-the-slaughter-solution.php_ref=fpa

pacino wrote:not sure why non-salary benefits are a bad thing.

They're not a bad thing. Their value is not a well-understood thing. My feeling is that they will not ever be; the subject matter is, frankly, boring.

plus, workers in the pulic sector are, on average, less compensated for their years of experience and their education level, for whatever that's worth.

there are a variety of opinions about this; it is imprudent to take the truth of your assertion at face value.

the matter becomes especially pertinent when the subject of discussion is elected public officials, vs employed administrative/operational personnel.

but hey, i just had a 50k surgery for which i spent zero dollars. my insurance paid for it! i pay a percentage of that, but i would assume the masses would want me to pay for it all myself. because it's just not fair, amirite

now you're just talking nonsense.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40909822/


Go ahead and try to make a case for the death penalty.

Trent Steele wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40909822/


Go ahead and try to make a case for the death penalty.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/14/co ... daughters/

cshort wrote:

Trent Steele wrote:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40909822/


Go ahead and try to make a case for the death penalty.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/14/co ... daughters/

Terrible case for sure. Unfortunately, there is no real way to selectively apply the death penalty such that you "get it right" 100% of the time.

I should add that my opposition to it really isn't on absolute moral grounds (i.e., we shouldn't kill others) but on the legal impossibility of ensuring that we're killing the "right" people (i.e., those that, you know, actually committed the crime). The criminal judicial system, particularly at the state level, is an utter disgrace.

Twins born to different fathers

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 8#40839408


(then slutmom filed for divorce. shocker.)

Bucky wrote:Twins born to different fathers

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp ... 8#40839408


(then slutmom filed for divorce. shocker.)

I didnt even know that could happen

and i didn't even realize this was the politics threat