I swear, the fact that Grayson is a Floridian senator makes me ashamed to be from this state. Though, I did get a kick out of him trying to castigate someone for inciting people when he's made claims like, "The Republican Party/Conservatives just want people to die."

Forgive my typo. I mean "facilities" rather than "faculties."

This ruling is anything but "calm, reasonable,[or] non-threatening". It isn't calm; for, from a legal standpoint, Justice Stevens' opinion was just shy of hysterical. It isn't reasonable because it answers one question by potentially creating hundreds more. It isn't non-threatening because it threatens some groups with being excluded from funding which other groups will not be so excluded.

A calm, reasonable, and non-threatening decision would be to disallow universities to use any monies taken in to fund any social club of any sort. If such a club wishes to use university faculties for their meetings, let them pay for it out of their own pockets; and, let them include or exclude whoever they wish. Further, let the universities...

The ironic thing is: the CBO probably underestimated these costs. $2000 is probably going to turn out to be a--pardon the pun--conservative estimate.

Ad Ted: if you think there is an equivocation to be made between Theism and White Supremacism, then you really have no understanding of the two. Ad ReligionisforTools: please peddle your useless and puerile nonsense elsewhere.

Ad Lilly: Your argument is a straw man built upon a hasty generalization. This is perfectly encapsulated in the following statement of yours: "If religious freedom is about exclusion and control, then we could say that a Jew could not be allowed to enter a Catholic church or a teacher could offer extra-credit work only to professed Christian students." First, the hasty generalization: religion isn't solely about exclusion and control. Yes, both of those things come into most orthodox religions, but only as a consequence of a wider corpus of beliefs that adherents accept freely and willingly. Further, most orthodox religions only bring control into the mix in reference to the self-control that they expect their adherents to...

Alleged red herrings aside, Dr. Adams' points still stand: equal protection under the law means that there are not specialized classes--both of people and crimes--that constitute the need for specialized punishments.

After all, the legal understanding of "motive" is methodological: it concerns itself with understanding why a particular crime was committed as a means of demonstrating the likelihood that a particular person committed said crime. Under a true system of equal protection, it doesn't matter whether a homosexual was mugged for being homosexual, or for his wallet. The thought process that led to the crime is incidental; therefore, when it comes to meting out punishment, it is immaterial.

Furthermore, Dr. Adams'...

Rick, did the government help to create record sales of homes, construction materials, etc.? This program--and all the other government action on behalf of the auto industry--is the entire housing debacle writ small--so far at least. At best, it will be a drop of fresh water into an ocean of bad debt--assuming that those who took advantage of the program actually keep up their end of the contracts. At worst, it will be another economic bubble--this time created by auto sales--which will eventually burst and damage the economy as well.

The problem with your oil example is that it ignores that this isn't a matter of consumer confidence. The car companies that are flailing the most are the ones who make cars that fewer and fewer...

My apologies for being superlative, but your response to Useful Idiots ignores his main point: with its "Cash for Clunkers" program, the government is deciding winners--i.e., autoworkers, manufacturers, dealers, salespeople--and losers--i.e, any other taxpaying person whom is not in any of those fields. This is not something the government has any Constitutional right to do, and it borders dangerously on fascism.

Further, to use your oil company example: the C.A.R.S. program would be like the government offering gas rebates if people bought certain kinds of gas from certain companies. However, even those who didn't do so would still have to pay the taxes necessary for these rebates.
Given that the oil industry is doing fine...

I think that the way this program will generate wealth is that it will do the following:

--increase sales of cars; hence, dealers and salespeople make more money.

--increase the amount of car loans; hence, banks will make more money.

--increase the number of cars ordered from various manufacturing plants; hence, manufacturers will make more money.

Hence, the wealth will simply be redistributed from those of us who are not in any of the aforementioned professions to those who are in said professions. Along the way, interest rates will generate some wealth--assuming that all the customers who use this program honor their commitments; however, once the taxes needed to pay for this program kick in, any of the...