carmenc

No he is not. The Gov granted privileges to those who followed the intent of the fair housing laws (which put people in houses they could not afford) and punished those who did not. Now, I am not saying the banks do not have a burden to bare in this but to blame those solely is not correct. Some of the debt-coverage contracts you speak of where born of the risk that these banks were put in under these programs The fraction of the mess created by government imposed lending rules is totally insignificant in comparison with the totality. Check your numbers. Exactly the oposite You do realize the huge logical inconsistency of your statement, I hope.

And here I thought it was based on their interpretation of the laws. Tell ya what - why don't you find us a recent decision that was based on politics like you and Lucky claim - I want to see how they wrote THAT decision. The decision to nominate Roberts was based on politics. The decision to nominate Alito was based on politics. The decision to nominate Sotomayor was based on politics. The decision to nominate Kagan was based on politics. If politics wasn't involved there wouldn't be any partisan voting on the nominations.

No he is not. The Gov granted privileges to those who followed the intent of the fair housing laws (which put people in houses they could not afford) and punished those who did not. Now, I am not saying the banks do not have a burden to bare in this but to blame those solely is not correct. Some of the debt-coverage contracts you speak of where born of the risk that these banks were put in under these programs The fraction of the mess created by government imposed lending rules is totally insignificant in comparison with the totality. Check your numbers.

The overwhelming volume of bad loans was not on account of anything the US government forced on the banks. The banks managed that all by themselves, with the willing assistance of Wall Street, The London Stock Exchange, The Deutsche Borse, The Tokyo Stock Exchange, Euronext, Borsa Italiana, and countless other financial entities that do NOT answer to the US government. The mess was a failure of under-regulated capitalism.

Wait... Do you believe in a "living Constitution" or not? Do you believe the SC or not? It seems you take the position that works best for you when you want it, and switch when it works better for you. Lucky is quite right. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means, which means it changes dynamically. The Supreme Court makes arbitrary decisions much of the time, based only on politics, which is why there is so much pissing and moaning in the Senate over appointments.

Make up your mind - weren't YOU the one that was just saying that the SC decisions are the 'living Constitution'? There is no contradiction.

www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/pheromone-speciation/

And it's getting worse, and time to do something about it. Uptick in Violence Forces Closing of Parkland Along Mexico Border to Americans http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/16/closes-park-land-mexico-border-americans/ Mexican Drug Cartel Reportedly Plotted to Blow Up Texas Dam http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/06/04/mexican-drug-cartel-reportedly-plotted-blow-texas-dam/?test=latestnews www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/us/20crime.html Truth, as usual, is the first victim.

We must all be out of work then, since there weren't 300m workers to begin with.

Why is evidence important? You didn't require any to believe the White House claims. Is anything posted on SC ever primary evidence? You appear to have different standards for different posters.

(a+b)(a-b) = a^2 -ab +ab -b^2 = a^2 - b^2

Looking at the curves Bill posted, it seems that the little ice age was ending well before the beginning of the industrial revolution.

What would you call it then? So we've agreed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (it allows visible and UV light in but wont let IR out), that atmospheric CO2 concentration are increasing, that mankind is producing a net increase in atmospheric CO2 by burning fossil fuels and that thermodynamics is right. Yet you somehow still think there is some complication that negates all of thise facts and magically stops them from adding up to AGW. What is this magic you are proposing? The magic of temperatures leading CO2 levels and not the reverse. How do you know "not the reverse"? Never before have any creatures caused such a huge rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. Please cite a study showing that raising atmospheric CO2 levels can not increase global temperatures.

No, not really. If you look at Jeffersons quote he said "free". Nice try. Convicted felons remain convicted felons after release from prison.

On a hot summer day, do you turn the heater on and then put on a sweater?

Climatologists and astronomers, unlike lawyers, can measure such things. See attached graph (before the 1970s solar output has to be inferred from sunspot data). The increase in solar output has been taken into account and is insufficient to account for the temperature change.

I posted about Glasgow, which IS in Britain. And compared it to Houston and Dallas, which are in the United States - at least TRY to make an honest reply, John. And if YOU want to make bullshit comparisons between European and U.S. cities, start YOUR own thread. You and JR should consider casting the beams out of your own eyes before worrying about the motes in the eyes of Britons. YOU are the one that made the comparison between Britain and the US, John - worry about your OWN beam before talking about JR or my motes. Since Glasgow, "Homicide capital of Europe", has less than 1/2 the homicide rate of Houston or Dallas, and Britain "The most violent country in Europe" has less half the homicide rate of the USA, it appears you have your beams and motes confused.

Bullshit. When the oil climbs tto $3k per barrel, I suspect that it will be a reflection of the lack of sustainability of the supply. That whole thing about oil being what it's worth. t. Attitudes exactly like yours are what resulted in having to set up the Superfund to clean up toxic waste dumps like Love Canal. All the time you pollute without paying the costs, you are passing the real cost on to someone esle. Attitudes like yours resulted in evacuating entire towns like Times Beach in a panic and then, 20 years later, saying that we may have overreacted. Attitudes like yours resulted in putting MTBE in gasoline to make it more environmentally friendly, thus creating additional well-intentioned (no pun intended) havoc. Attitudes like mine resulted in Superfund having a structure that had the companies who did the polluting pony up the dough to pay for the cleanup. . You just destroyed your own argument there, Mr. Laywer.

maybe so but CO is, http://www.epa.gov/iaq/co.html Maybe you should go back to school! No, you mean I need to go back to your school. CO2 is a part of the nature of this planet. Labeling it as a polutant is political So is arsenic. So is mercury. Your statement, as always, defies all logic. I did not know you breathed out arsenic. got to be very bad breath Nice non-sequitur there. You brought up the topic that naturally occuring substances in the environment should not be labeled as being pollutants, and got caught out.

The resolution is not an apology by white people to black people. It's an apology by the United States government, which de jure and/or de facto allowed slavery and Jim Crow to exist within the national borders for an extended period of time. That is how I understand it, too.

What do you expect when the high schools use athletics coaches to teach physics?

I was just in Scotland and saw some enormous ones in the highlands. Bigger than any I've seen in the US.

So after making the corrections the author bafflegabs about, the US still only makes it to 16th. That's 15 away from #1, where the richest country on Earth ought to be.

So, why doesn't Bush get a "2 year exemption", Bill? Must be a "Democrats only" special, I suppose. Your logic is crappy. Climbing out of a deep hole generally takes longer than climbing out of a shallow hole. Right now we are in a deep hole.

which is the bit which says i'm wrong Minor royals don't get money from the government. Only Liz and Phil do. And even that is much less than the money the crown estates give the Treasury. In aggregate the Royals more than support themselves.