John McCain coming to Wilkes-Barre ( trip , job, hospice)

[FightinPhils]

Originally Posted by WasPA

^^^^Clinton never said that she was born in Scranton......why the false assertion? Her Dad and his family were from Scranton and she did spend a fair amount of time in NePA growing up....and she's got a legtimate claim to have known the area well and fondly.

Not so hard to comprehend, is it?


glad you feel 'muck' better.......speaking of Freudian slips.......

Clinton used this "association" with Scranton for political gain. I'm sure she said the same things in Illinois where she grew up, in Arkansas where she lived with Bill, and in other places she's frequented over the years. Its politics......can't say I blame her, you have to take any advantage you can get in a political race.

[Acevaz]

I saw his speech the night Obama was announced as the Democratic nominee and to be honest I didn't feel a connection at all. Plus, I hate to say this but @ 71 how much energy can you have running a country? My parents (64 yrs )needs at least 2 naps a day to function...

[W-B proud]

Originally Posted by WasPA

^^^^Clinton never said that she was born in Scranton......why the false assertion? Her Dad and his family were from Scranton and she did spend a fair amount of time in NePA growing up....and she's got a legtimate claim to have known the area well and fondly.

Not so hard to comprehend, is it?


glad you feel 'muck' better.......speaking of Freudian slips.......

Thank you, I do feel muck better!

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

Personally it's not something i would support because I support the freedom of the individual. I do want to point out to you that nearly every argument that you used in the Smoking Ban thread could be applied here. If our legislators make that decision and 75% of the population supports it then must be right? Take a long hard look look at that, as I mentioned in the other thread its different when the shoe is on the other foot.

That was quite an epic thread, wasn't it?

To make a long story short, if Pennsylvanians *did* enact a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, it would be fine law as it currently stands, but it would eventually get struck down under two approaches:

(1) I would actually argue that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment protects sexual orientation from unlawful discrimination, just like it protects race, sex, religion, etc. When I say "protects" in an EPC context, I mean that laws based on sexual orientation should be considered a "suspect class" that upon review require application of the least-deferential standard of review: strict scrutiny review. In this way, laws based on sexual orientation would need a very compelling reason to avoid being struck down.

So, if the court ever recognizes that (it currently doesn't), state constitutional bans based on sexual orientation would likely not survive review. While the states can give greater rights under their constitution than the Federal Constitution through a legal doctrine called New Federalism, they can't give lesser rights.

We're probably on that path as a country, but it will take a lot longer for the Supreme Court to recognize sexual orientation as protected under the EPC with guys like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito in there for quite a bit longer. So I don't expect this argument to succeed for quite some time.

(2) Regardless of whether we get the EPC argument, an Obama Presidency would surely sign that Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which extends protection against unlawful discrimination under federal statute to sexual orientation. A federal statute like ENDA also preempts a state constitutional amendment under the federal Supremacy Clause.

This second approach is, of course, moot if McCain wins because I doubt Democrats will grow their lead in Congress enough to overcome a Presidential veto.

*LATE EDIT. I'm wrong about the second approach. ENDA applies only to employment so it wouldn't automatically preempt an amendment about marriage. It does however raise some tough questions about whether a same-sex partner can claim employment spousal benefits in a state that does not recognize same-sex unions or marriages. I couldn't answer that one here.

[nkotb]

Originally Posted by W-B proud

I think in order to say "I'm from here, or there". 1. You had to be born there. 2. You had to be raised there for most of your childhood. 3. both. As far as I know, Hillary has none of the above (with Scranton). I have relatives from Chicago and Delaware that I have visited as a child more frequently then Hillary has ever visited Scranton, but I don't claim to be from Chicago or Delaware!?! It makes my skin crawl when Scrantonians proudly boast that "Hillary's from Scranton!", or "She's one of us!" I have news for you. HILLARY IS DEFINATELY NOT ONE OF US!!! Her net worth is probably larger then the entire population of Scranton combined! And has nothing in common with the average Scrantonian! Nothing! Can't they see that she was just saying that to win more votes? I guess see also shoots whiskey and goes huntin' on a regular basis too. Besides when Hillary did speak about our area, she seemed much more fond of Lake Winola anyways. If anyone should be bragging that Hillaries "from here" it's the residents of Lake Winola!!! Thank you for letting me get that off my chest. I feel muck better now!

I have lived at Lake Winola for 60 years !!! And, guess what - NO ONE
ever heard of Hillary until Big Bill ran for President !!! But, they won't
admit it, I have heard such quotes as " I dated her, we were best friends, we played together, etc " You get the picture !!! Really quite
amusing. I can say I know her brothers and they are both A___H____s !!

[ecam222]

Originally Posted by W-B proud

Is anyone gonna go see John McCain when he comes to Wilkes-Barre in July? Does anyone even like John McCain?

Yes, a lot of people do. I'm voting for him.

[Chefkey]

McCain would have had my vote 10 years ago but not now at 71. I am all for long life and keeping it all together as you go into older years but the Presidency is a TOUGH job and I can't imagine the stress it will take.

Should a 71 year old being doing this job? Will he handle it well? Shouldn't he be retired?

I know I want retirement by then and certainly not a stressful job. People are overlooking this and will regret it.

[reztrop]

McCains plan also includes using coal, coal is by far this nations largest source of energy. 25% of the worlds know reserves lie underneath the U.S. The estimated recoverable reserves can meet this nations power needs well into the next century. To not exploit that resource especially if it can be done in an environmentally friendly way would be quite frankly dumb.

We surely need to invest in clean energy for the future but in the meantime we need to solve out immediate problems. McCains energy plan calls for using reliable, proven energy sources while also advancing clean technology.

Obama's view that we can do this with renewable energy is a pipe dream, he's only trying to appeal to the environmentalist vote which got us in this predicament in the first place.

I get bemused when I see ads on the highway advertising clean coal. Because frankly speaking, although coal may be plentiful, it is basically carbon. Anything carbon that gets burned to produce energy will emit carbon dioxide. 1 ton of coal burned will produce 3 tons of carbon dioxide. We can't afford to keep burning coal considering that each ton of carbon emitted will take up to 100 years to dissolve from the atmosphere.

So there is no such thing as clean coal. A marketing gimmick if you ask me.

China is building 4 coal plants a week. We will destroy the planet if we join China in increasing coal usage.

McCain can't be serious when he said he would offer a $300 million prize to the scientist who designed the most efficient car battery. As Obama said in response, we need to devote the full resources of the government into research and development on clean energy, just like how we nurtured talent and resources into building the Manhattan Project or the Apollo moon mission.

A good idea would be to require all existing coal plants to install sequestration technologies within 2-3 years. If they fail to install, the government should impose a carbon tax on them for noncompliance. The revenue from the tax should then be used to reduce payroll income taxes.

I haven't heard an idea like that yet from McCain or Obama.

[ScranBarre]

UGH! Well, for reasons unrelated to this thread I am 100% throwing my support behind Sen. Barack Obama.

[thecoalman]

Originally Posted by reztrop

So there is no such thing as clean coal. A marketing gimmick if you ask me.

It's a technology that has not been fully developed yet called carbon capture. DOE - Fossil Energy: DOE's FutureGen Initiative Other emmisions have been greatly reduced over the years, todays coal plant is not the same as yesteryear.


I'm all for the development of clean energy however I'm not for destroying my way of life in the process. Although Al Gore and his crowd are more that willing to try an lead this country into economic ruin I'll not be party to it. Do some research and you'll find an abundance of scientists debating as to whether the carbon emissions that we emit are the cause of global warming. The general public only hears what the media publishes and unfortunately only gloom and doom sells so that is all you ever see. The fictional Hollywood produced film by Al Gore has been roundly criticized as nonfactual yet the public eats it up as the "truth". When Al gore moves out his energy guzzling mansion he might get my ear.

As Obama said in response, we need to devote the full resources of the government into research and development on clean energy, just like how we nurtured talent and resources into building the Manhattan Project or the Apollo moon mission.

And if ten, twenty years from now they don't have any of these technologies online? It's a gamble and it's not a gamble I'm willing to take.