Wyrostek

Good post.

I think it is fair to conclude that we see the impact of the incident somewhat differently. Possibly we should just agree to disagree.

Absolutely. That should apply in all situations- criminal and civil. I think one of the main problems with our society is that everyone seems to know his or her rights but few seem to know of his or her responsibilities.

Well, it appears that opinions on the abortion of babies, even in the late- term, receives varied reactions- even on BGP. Why would you think that the killing of one of the four remaining late term abortionists would not be varied? As spindoc said, this could be called another late-term abortion.

Fair enough, Clyde. Do as you feel moved to do. Indeed, we should all react as we feel is proper under the circumstances.

Not everyone disagrees with you. If there is a "right" to drink then there should be a "responsibility" to avoid injuring others. If you break the responsibility, you should be be held firmly accountable for the damage you cause. with no excuses. You commit the crime, you pay the price.

I'm not taking your bait, Clyde. I am merely stating that the reaction to his killing will be varied. Interpret it to suit your needs. However, I must be honest and admit that my tears are for the thousands of aborted babies and not for the perpetrator. I think that is a reasonable reaction from one who believes first in the sanctity of the life of the innocents.

This was the killling of a man who performed thousands of abortions, many late term, during the last 35 years. He, among prolifers, was considered to be a mass murderer little different from other mass murderers in our history. And you ask why the reaction to his death will be varied?

Fox News is reporting that the infamous late-term abortion provider, George Tiller, has been murdered. Reactions should be varied.

I would certainly agree with your first statement but would add that sin also arises if , by your example, you lead someone else to excessive drinking. I know that some in Ashland and maybe Boyd County are starting a move to allow Sunday beer sales. The premise is, according to a friend of mine who is a Boyd County official, that Sunday sales will stimulate the stagnate economy in and around Ashland. I find it hard to believe that such a move will make more than a scintilla of difference in the economy in that area. If you have driven through Ashland in the last couple of years, you are aware that it will take far more than Sunday beer sales to revive that place. As proof of the futility up there, the recent "moist" vote which resulted in every precinct in the county becoming wet (an unexpected and unadvertised outcome) has resulted in nothing. Honest assessors know that Sunday beer sales will do little more. Of course, to quote my source, a few profitable businesses hiring more than waitresses, busboys, and dishwashers would help.

They will. Bet on it. Look for Ginsberg and Stevens to leave at appropriate times. The ones you need to protect are the other five Catholics- Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy. If one of them is lost, if you think we are in a dangerous situation now, you will see real extremism in a year or two after BO and his ilk get control of the court.

Can you cite some examples from MSNBC and CNN? If you heard anything negative, it wasn't from one of their anchors, analysts, or reporters. It had to be from some token Republican who was thrown in to give an appearance of "balance". I'll bet no one mentioned that Sotomayor has had six decisions in which she wrote the majority opinion appealed to the US Supreme Court? She was reversed in five of the six. I mention that in the spirit of full disclosure. She will obviously be confirmed easily. She is the stereotypical BO type of judicial appointment. Still, I can hope that her Catholic foundation occasionally wins out over her liberal bias.

As predicted, the usual media sources are ecstatic over the choice of Sotomayor. CNN and MSNBC have already run out of superlatives. It would make one wonder why this truly special woman was not elevated to royalty long ago. Why should no one be surprised?

Allegedly Sotomayor is a Roman Catholic. If this is true, she will be the sixth (out of nine) Roman Catholic on the US Supreme Court. However, her record indicates that she will rarely join with the other five in making decisions. I just took a look at the seal of the Kentucky Bar Association which features Lady Justice holding the scales and a sword. She is blindfolded. Her blindfold carries great symbolism. Justice is to be blind. Decisions are not made with empathy and the heart. It may sound good to be aware of the personal circumstances and background of litigants but it is not the purpose of the law. Over and over, through her decisions and through her statements, Sotomayor has shown her willingness to remove Lady Justice's blindfold. She will be popular with the media and the administration but she is wrong. Much of her judicial philosophy can be summed up in her decision in the New Haven firefighters case (pending in US Supreme Court as Ricci v DeStefano). In this case, she voted to uphold the "right" of the city to disregard test scores used for the promotion of firefighters in the city because almost no minorities qualified for promotion based on the scores of that test. Subjectivity has no place in the courts. However, I feel sure that this is merely the beginning of reshaping the federal courts in a way not remotely intended or anticipated by the framers of the US Constitution. I just hope and pray that God will protect the other five Roman Catholics presently on the Court.

Just what is "Powell's vision"?

Really. That's interesting. Are you speaking of Colin Powell or St. Thomas? His stock seems to rise with each shot he takes at the Bush Administration- of which he was allegedly a member. Could all that have anything to do with his status of love among liberals?

Much of Powell's popularity is because he gets such positive coverage by all forms of the media. If he is a Republican, which is highly debatable, he is the only one getting such glorification. Wonder why? Could it be because he openly opposes those who are seen as demons by the ultra-liberal media and sounds much like BO, Pelosi, and the others? What else, in all honesty, could it be?

Are you assuming that all of these you seek to raise to the middle class are willing to work for a living? Many won't work so what do we do about them?Or, are you suggesting that we all need to "prosper" fairly equally- contributor or noncontributor? That sounds like a bit of socialism.

I gotta you. Still, the approach of kissing up to the unions at the expense of all the rest of us isn't a positive approach. Of course, I am assuming that those running the show are trying to promote what is best for the country rather than certain compatible groups. I would hope that someone will have the backbone to test the constitutionality of some of this.

Excellent post by Bluegrasscard. Regardless of the apparent popular belief, we aren't moving in a good positive direction.

Depending on the terms of the issue, the bonds could be secured or unsecured. However, reality would probably result in, even if they are technically secured, no actual collateral being available to pay anything. So, in the end, the claims will be worthless. Secured creditors do not have a superior claim over unsecured creditors in regard to general assets of the debtor. Secured creditors depend on the collateral securing their claim for payment (ie: properly perfected mortgages and liens). In this case, most likely nothing of material value will be available for this group of "secured" creditors.

Good question. Do they sue GM or the government? It would be an impossibility to hold the government liable. If they win a judgment against GM, is it worthless since GM would be in bankruptcy and the claim is probably unsecured (which in bankruptcy nearly always means "worthless")?

Of course. Just like a child kidnapped by a child molester agrees to be tortured to death. Surely, you realize that there is a bit of governmental duress involved here. Also, the company does not speak for its legitimate creditors- the screwed bondholders- who loaned money to the company and purchased those corporate bonds. Any you find no problem here? George Orwell may well have been a prophet who merely used the wrong year for the title of his book.

I just read in the Washington Post that, under the proposed GM Chapter 11 Plan that the UAW will receive a 39% ownership share of GM in return for the $10B owed it. On the other hand, bondholders, who are owed $29B, will receive a 10% ownership share. This is similar to the deal forced on Chrysler bondholders. Does anyone besides me see something shocking, dangerous, and unfair about all this?

Clyde, you stumbled on a nugget. Still, the nomination of McCain, while a poor choice, doesn't really explain the rapid rise of BO from low level community agitator surrounded by radicals to the WH in such a short time. It is truly a fairy tale of sorts.