Posts Made By: James Brown

Russ Carroll said:

Even Rove thinks Romney is ahead now:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304840904577422200571363734.html?mod=hp_opinion

BLOWOUT, BLOWOUT, BLOWOUT. It will not be close. I can't believe there are so few that see the can of whoop ass that is coming.

Russ:

Karl is talking about the 3-2-1 path where 3 red states IN, VA and NC regain sanity, 2 big "Bush" states, Oh and Fl return to the fold and one more purple state puts Romney over the top. that lucky purple state could be CO, NM, NH, PA, NV, WI, MI or maybe others. I have no doubt that if Romney can win Oh and Fl he'll get a few of those purple states and win. I'd love for Colorado to be the one that puts him over the top.

But...

A blowout?

I want to pin you down on this "can of whoop ass" and BLOWOUT thing.

(1) Do you think that Romney will carry approximately all of the purple states and win easily as in Bush v. Kerry, or

(2) do you think that Romney will flip a solid blue state or two and thus achieve a minor-historic stomping, kind of like Obama did with Indiana, Virginia and NC, or

(3) do you think Romney will flip a lot of blue states and deliver a basically Red electoral college map in a serious KO like Regan and Nixon did?

Obviously #3 is a historic butt-kicking, unprecidented since Regan's time. I'm not sure if #2 qualifies as a "BLOWOUT, BLOWOUT, BLOWOUT" but what the heck... #1 is what Rove and a lot of pundits are cautiously predicting.

So... Not that it matters at all... Please get more precise on the nature of your BLOWOUT, BLOWOUT, BLOWOUT call. I only really want to know so that I can determine whether your celebratory "I called it first" end-zone dance the evening of election day is justified or not. (Hopefully I'll have the opportunity to consider the issue anyway).

Thanks for playing along!

Jim

Rod Kaufman said:

"Homeowners", and I use that term loosely, who didn't pay their mortgages, are now entitled up to 125,000 as a result of "abuses" they may have suffered in the process:
http://www.ketknbc.com/news/homeowners-to-receive-up-to-125000-for-foreclosure-abuses
It's almost enough to make me start voting Republican...

I'd love to see you vote Republican Rod, but it does look like one has to be the victim of a legitimate abuse before he's eligible for the big bucks, (for example a foreclosure without default or an illegal forclosure of a serviceman stationed overseas).

Also, take a few minutes to peruse the program web pages. The link below is just to the FAQs. Yikes! What a morass of bureaucratic red tape. This kind of thing is almost enough to make me start voting anarchist!

You still sure you want this crowd in charge of your health care?

http://www.occ.gov/topics/consumer-protection/foreclosure-prevention/financial-remediation-faqs.html#19

Jim

Blaine Snow said:

TAKE NOTE that the seller for Classified #611180 (GO 30x100 binoculars WP-IF.UA Unimount Light,Tripod + Xtras) stopped responding to my emails after I agreed to purchase his set up. I would appear that he is not interested in selling this set up as this ad was posted over three years ago in Jan. 2009. Astromart should have an ad expiration date after which if something isn't sold it is closed or taken down.

Hi Blaine:

That ad is not shown if you click on the "binoculars" category, heck it is not shown in any active ad category. The ad properly timed out many many years ago.

You must have found it by using the search function, which is a handy historical-reference pricing tool, but not that useful if you are looking for active ads and active sellers. I personally would hate to lose access to these old expired ads because the pricing information is so critical for research purposes.

Jim

Jim Brown said:

They are blogging this unexpected decision right now at the SCOTUS blog. Roberts joined the left

More info later.

J

Apparently the majority re-construed the mandate as a tax. From the SCOTUS blog:

"The money quote from the section on the mandate: Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it."

Jim Brown said:

They are blogging this unexpected decision right now at the SCOTUS blog. Roberts joined the left

More info later.

J

"In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."

Wow... who would of thought that Roberts would play this role and Kennedy play that role.

Jim

Jim Brown said:

They are blogging this unexpected decision right now at the SCOTUS blog. Roberts joined the left

More info later.

J

Here is the opinion. Avoid the media spin, read it for yourself!

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

J

Jim Brown said:

They are blogging this unexpected decision right now at the SCOTUS blog. Roberts joined the left

More info later.

J

From the Roberts opinion:

"We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation's elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions."

Roberts has definitely kicked the ball back to us the people. If a law is Consititutional and stupid, we need to elect leaders to do something about it.

Jim

Jim Brown said:

They are blogging this unexpected decision right now at the SCOTUS blog. Roberts joined the left

More info later.

J

Romney, speaking right now:

"What the Court did today was say that Obama care did not violate the Constitution. They did not say that it is good law or good policy"

"If we want to get rid of Obama care, we are going to have to replace President Obama"

J

Steve Mathis said:

It took a while to get all the AVIs processed for this. This is a 21 frame mosaic, made with ToUcam and C11 on June 28.

Wow! 21 frames.... 8O

Very nice!

Jim

Russ Carroll said:

that was quick!

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/03/12543099-california-bill-would-allow-children-to-have-more-than-two-parents?lite

and here is the next "You SAID this would never happen" goalpost, from the article:

The legislation does not place any limit on the number of recognized parents a child could have, although, Leno called the possibility of a child having five or six parents “laughable.�

Did you read the article?

Jim