Which soap opera? The birthers? The energy debate? Maybe the health debate? Which soap opera, professor?
None of the above….the most noxious of soap operas…..Sarah Palin.
Her ex-soon-to-be- son-in law. Levi is telling all in Vanity Fair:
He said that she probably did not know one end of a fishing pole from another and that the interviews she did in her Wal-Mart waders was all a sham…..and that she did not hunt and did not even know how to fire the gun she had in a box under her bed. He continued with the kids doid most of the cooking or went to Taco Bell for her for dinner. And that her and hubby Todd seldom spent any time together and that she seldom went to her son’s hockey games. And finally, she impressed that SHE was the one that brought to pizzaz to the GOP and finally she wanted to skip being governor and go straight to making lots of money.
According to Johnston, Palin also rarely attended her son Track’s hockey games, and she often complained about her job as governor, saying it was “too hard.” She frequently fought with her husband, Todd, who slept in a separate room during the Republican National Convention. And, says Johnston, “there was a lot of talk of divorce in that house … times when Sarah and Todd would mention it and sound pretty serious.”(This is paraphrased for the sake of brevity)
I know…I know…why do I bring all this up….am I bad mouthing Ms Palin? Not at all I just want to make the point…..that some will see this as the liberal media attacking Palin because they do not like her….and none it of it is true……am I right?……If that is the case, then using the same logic, is the stuff being told in opposition to Obama from the likes of FOX News or Limbaugh, is it true or lies because they do not like him. If the liberals are attacking and lying about Palin is because she is a strong woman, then the crap by the ant-Obama people is because he is a strong black man and nothing else.
Okay, Radical Right…you cannot have it both ways…..
Subject: Economics/US Constitution
Recently a townhall protester was heard to say and was captured on film saying it. He was holding up a book on the US Constitution.
Right here. I got a book here called the U.S.S. Constitution. I’m sure everybody’s seen this before. And you know what? I’ve this book three times now, and I’ve referenced it dozens of times and I can’t find one little paragraph in here that says the government has the right to take over our health care.
The Constitution gives Congress the power “‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ and sports fans that is a direct quote from the Constitution, the document not the ship.
I guess a case can be made that the health of the people is not necessarily in the general welfare, but then somewhere we could. If we want to go by the letter of the Constitution then I suggest that when debating torture that the amendment 8 of the Constitution be read and understood.
There are times that I run across absurd stories that I just cannot let go of at any cost and this one is by far the most absurd I have seen so far this year.
A bank in Florida refused to cash a check for an armless man because he could not provide a thumbprint.”They looked at my prosthetic hands and the teller said, ‘Well, obviously you can’t give us a thumbprint’,” Steve Valdez told CNN on Wednesday.
But he said the Bank of America Corp branch in downtown Tampa, Florida, still insisted on a thumbprint identification for him to cash a check drawn on his wife’s account at the bank, even though he showed them two photo IDs.
In the incident last week, a bank supervisor told Valdez he could only cash the check without a thumbprint if he brought his wife in with him or he opened an account with them.
Bank of America said in a statement cited by CNN: “While the thumbprint is a requirement for those who don’t have accounts, the bank should have made accommodations.”
Valdez said his treatment by the bank violated the U.S. Americans with Disability Act requiring institutions to provide reasonable accommodation to disabled persons.
Is that not taking the letter of the law a bit far? Common sense would dictate….oh damn…sorry…common sense is in short supply in the US….sad ……