How Does Salmonella Get Inside Chicken Eggs?

Salmonella enteritidis is a bacterium that causes flu-like symptoms in humans. It usually enters the human body through undercooked food that we eat, such as chicken eggs. Symptoms develop 12-24 hours after the infected food has been eaten and last anywhere from 4 to 7 days. The bacterium actually lives inside infected chicken eggs and how it got there was once a mystery.
Salmonella enteritidis lives in the feces of many animals, including chickens. Because chickens sit on their eggs, even before they are collected for consumer purchases, the eggs may be subjected to the bacterium. It was found that S. enteritidis could actually penetrate the hard outer shell of the egg and live inside the yolk, where it can reproduce. After further research, it was also established that the bacterium could infect hens' ovaries, and contaminate the egg before it even developed a shell. Also, egg collectors clothing could pick up S. enteritidis from chicken feces, contaminating other chicken houses. So what are the egg producers doing to prevent human illness from the bacterium?

The egg industry has tried to eliminate S. enteritidis from its chicken houses by practicing new sanitation procedures. Also, they are testing hens for the ovarian bacterium and eliminating chicken houses infested with S. enteritidis. To ensure that you never become ill due to this bacterium, make sure to cook eggs fully before you eat them. Not all eggs contain Salmonella enteritidis, but who would want to take the chance?

Does anyone know ... do we need tickets for this ... or is it just a "show up" type of thing?

So are they that stupid or are they that evil?

If the definition has loose boundaries, one should be able to earn their musician badge by hanging some wind chimes on the front porch.

Given a more holistic criteria set, ...one should be able to play a musical instrument beyond just the basics, resolve complex chord progressions, re-harmonize, improvise over a wide range of progressions, ...play any genre (this last one separates the stylist from the musician).

As for what a musical instrument is, see: Sachs-Hornbostel classification.
...no turntable (tape deck, or optical drives) listed.

1. Marijuana is in fact one of the more popular gateway drugs for teens today.

2. A fair amount of teens who smoke pot move on to harder, more dangerous controlled substances such as meth, coke, heroine, oxy, percs and so on.

3. The controlled substances they move on to do in fact "kill" children through overdoses. This is a fairly direct item and only 1 step removed from doing pot.

4. Some who are purchasing the seeds are using them for medicinal purposes.

5. Some who are purchasing the seeds are using them for their own "private stash" so to say.

6. Some who are purchasing the seeds are using them to cultivate a crop for re-sale. Now, this is where it gets fun.

7. Those who re-sell pot have in the past and currently are known to carry firearms and to use those firearms in indiscriminate manners to control their territory and protect their inventory and liquid (cash) assets.

8. Children have been shot while playing in their yards, sleeping in their beds and even in their mother's arms while sleeping. Nice thought, run up to mommy for a hug and love and get shot by a drug dealer driving by.

9. If the seeds did not exist the plant would not exist. If the plant did not exist then the dealer would not exist. (Hmmm... Nice theory isn't it. Remove the seed and the dealer withers away into dust...)

10. Marc Emery knows full well what the laws in the United States and Canada are, he knows full well that these seeds at the price they are sold and the small quantity sold will be used to cultivate marijuana plants, some of them by dealers.

11. Marc Emery knowing the laws, the risks and the potential for being arrested chose to deal in these seeds and then chose to market in the United States the sale of these seeds.

12. Marc Emery is now sitting in a jail, with both the Canadian & US Gov'ts having reviewed the case and arrived at this decision unanimously.

What's really amazing to me here, is how those who are so strongly for marijuana see it as completely harmless and a "good" thing. In fact, like any other item it has it's benefits (I'll concede those) and it has it's drawbacks.

It carries with it basically the same exact risks of lung/heart disease as cigarrettes,

it does in fact alter how the mind see things (similiar to alcohol as both are a depressant)

it's an expensive habit that sucks the financial resources out of a home and community,

it enables people to do things (make decisions) that they normally would not do without it (as does alcohol)

and again I only see 1 or 2 potentially positive uses for it, being prescribed medicinal and potentially hemp rope. Beyond that, I've never seen anything else positive come out of it.

To attempt to declare what Emery did as harmless, is completely wrong.

By arresting Emery the DEA has temporarily cut the head off of may pot dealers

I know, they have their own plants now and thus their own seeds

who we're looking to grow and develop into new areas of pot trafficing.

And yes, I do see drug dealers as being equal to and deserving of the same punishment as child killers and pedophiles.

Now, did it have the potential to affect the liberty (freedom) of someone? Yes, every person who transported those packages had the risk of going to jail.

What Marc Emery did was stupid,

he did it because of greed,

You may think the sentence is ridiculous, but here it seems to be not strong enough in the minds of many of us. How about 5 years for every single order he sold in the US. Now that would be justice in my book.

Okay, fine. Let's ignore what he did on the Canadian side of the border and just look at the things he did on the United States border.

He employed the United States Postal Service, as a sub-contractor of the Canadian Postal Service (not sure what it's called in Canada), to distribute and deliver a magazine that contained within it the means in which to order via the United States Postal Service and consequently utilizing the Canadian Postal Service to receive the funds for this transaction.

In addition, he then, without full and complete disclosure, shipped these seeds (we can assume this because the US never would have knowingly accepted them otherwise) to addresses in the United States.

I say screw Marc Emery and I personally hope the guys in the US prison he's in teach him one heck of a lesson. Can we say... Marc, meet your new wife.

Seems to me, that in Canada, being a drug lord (which is what Emery is)

Where does Emery get the seeds?

It would only be a natural conclusion that he is cultivating the plants and at least harvesting their seeds,

United States chose to enforce it when he began distribution in the United States

The really nice thing now, would be to see the Canadian Government step in, seize his house, cars, furnishings, bank accounts, store, inventory and magazine, stocks, bonds, mutual funds and anything else the guy has.

He got 5 years for his crap, that's nothing in comparison to what he has done.

1. The United States and Canada do in fact have extradition treaties. It happens all the time. Canada will simply refuse to deport if it's a capital punishment offense until the US agrees to NOT execute the offender. Okay, the US puts up with this. In reality, we could save money by not trying to extradite them and just wait for Canada to deport them on a Visa violation and pick 'em up at the border. Saves us the money of housing, prosecuting and executing them. I like this plan.

2. Marc Emery did a little more than accept orders for seeds. He publishes a magazine that offers these seeds for sale, in which he himself is the advertiser and distributor, he distributed this magazine with it's add for an illegal and controlled substance in the United States. The readers did NOT come to Canada to get the magazine.

The US regularly does extradite individuals who commit crimes in other countries to those countries or prosecutes them here.

he snubbed his nose at the DEA

check photos of Marc Emery at 50 years of age ..to me he look s at least 60, maybe 65 +

Thank you, Judy, for that introduction, and for your work on behalf of working Americans.

Thank you to Caroline Fredrickson for your leadership and for inviting me to speak here tonight.

Thank you all for being here tonight, and for the good work you do to defend the Constitution and the American values it represents.

It is an honor to address this convention.

Speakers at past ACS gatherings have included Supreme Court Justices, Attorneys General, other cabinet secretaries, federal judges, and distinguished legal scholars.

So tonight I guess we'll finally get an answer to the question: "What do Stephen Breyer, Laurence Tribe, and Al Franken have in common?"

Other than: "They were all in the front row when the Dead played the Garden back in '71."

Tonight, we celebrate the rise of a new generation of progressive legal scholars and jurists.

Look to your left. Look to your right.

Odds are, at least one of the three of you will someday be filibustered by Senate Republicans.

Speaking of which, I'd like to give a special shout-out to all the filibustered nominees we have here with us tonight.

The Republican obstruction that is standing between you and the work you've agreed to do for your country is unacceptable. And we will continue to fight it.

In particular, I want to recognize Dawn Johnsen, who should be the head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. What Republicans have done to keep you from doing that important job is flat out wrong.

And I want to recognize Goodwin Liu, who should be sitting on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals right now, and who deserves an up-or-down vote.

When I joined the Senate, I was thrown right into the fire as a member of the Judiciary Committee, where, by the way, I enthusiastically voted for Goodwin.

On my fifth day in office, I found myself taking part in the confirmation hearings for now-Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Just like I am tonight, I was one of the few non-lawyers in the room, but I didn't mind.

You see, I did some research, and it turns out that most Minnesotans aren't lawyers, either.

But that doesn't mean they aren't directly affected every day by what happens on the Supreme Court, and in our legal system.

I don't think you need to be a lawyer to recognize that the Roberts Court has, consistently and intentionally, protected and promoted the interests of the powerful over those of individual Americans.

And you certainly don't need to be a lawyer to understand what that means for the working people who are losing their rights, one 5-4 decision at a time.

Tonight, I'd like to talk about how we got to this sad moment in American legal history - because it didn't happen by accident.

Conservative activists - led by the Federalist Society - have waged a remarkably successful battle to re-shape our legal discourse, and thus our legal system.

And they're not done yet.

I should acknowledge up front that this story is kind of a downer.

But there's good news: the ending has not yet been written. And I really believe that, if we pay attention to how things got so bad, we'll learn how to make them better.

---
Federalist Society members have long believed that, if you change the way you talk about the law, you can change the law.

They are right.

If you listen to the U.S. Senate talk about judicial nominees, you'd be forgiven for thinking that originalism was a time-honored American value, one of the things we fought the British to protect.

But ironically enough, originalism - like the designated hitter - only dates back a few decades.

Indeed, as Cass Sunstein has pointed out, it was Robert Bork who first popularized the notion that the Constitution should be interpreted according to what we believe was the "original understanding" of its authors.

Just to clarify: That's not Robert Bork the Founding Father. That's Robert Bork the 20th century conservative legal activist.

Originalism isn't a pillar of our Constitutional history. It's a talking point.

During his confirmation hearing, John Roberts broke out another conservative talking point. He said: "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them." And he promised: "I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat."

How ridiculous. Judges are nothing like umpires.

You know who agrees that judges are nothing like umpires? The guy who came up with the umpire analogy in the first place.

In 1886, in State v. Crittenden, a Louisiana Supreme Court Justice ruled that "a trial is not a mere lutte" - lutte is a French term for a wrestling match, as this analogy dates back to when baseball was a just a cult phenomenon - "a trial is not a mere lutte between counsel, in which the judge sits merely as an umpire to decide disputes which may arise between them."

So, when it comes to this analogy, I guess I'm an originalist.

But this kind of bamboozlement is effective. You hear Senators of both parties rush to condemn judges who might "legislate from the bench."

The end result is that people like Goodwin Liu - a brilliant, thoughtful, passionate young legal mind with a terrific life story and character references from the likes of Ken Starr - get tagged as dangerous radicals.

Look, say what you will about Ken Starr, but he's not the sort of guy who pals around with dangerous radicals.

Well. Not left-wing radicals.

---
The Federalist Society has changed the way we talk about judges - and the way we talk about justice.

Justice Souter once said: "The first lesson, simple as it is, is that whatever court we're in, whatever we are doing, at the end of our task some human being is going to be affected."

Conservatives would like us to forget this lesson.

They've distorted our constitutional discourse to make it sound like the Court's rulings don't matter to ordinary people, but only to the undeserving riff-raff at the margins of society.

So unless you want to get a late-term abortion, burn a flag in the town square, or get federal funding for your pornographic artwork, you really don't need to worry about what the Supreme Court is up to.

The ACLU has a long and proud history of defending the First Amendment, and while I haven't seen polling on this, I'd bet that most Americans are fairly pro-First Amendment. But, thanks to a generation of conservative activism, the ACLU is now best known as "those guys who hate Christmas."

By defining the terms of constitutional debate such that it doesn't involve the lives of ordinary people, conservatives have disconnected Americans from their legal system. And that leaves room for lots of shenanigans.

---
By controlling the conversation, the Federalist Society has moved the Supreme Court sharply to the right.

"Including myself," Justice Stevens said in an interview with the New York Times, "every judge who's been appointed to the court since Lewis Powell has been more conservative than his or her predecessor. Except maybe Justice Ginsburg. That's bound to have an effect on the court."

And, indeed, the Roberts Court has overturned two principles I believe are deeply ingrained in our Constitution, in our legal tradition, and in our American values.

First: Judicial restraint.

As I have noted repeatedly - and in an increasingly exasperated tone of voice - over the last few years, Justice Thomas has voted to overturn federal laws more often than Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer combined.

They haven't just been activists in their decisions, but also in their process.

In both Citizens United and Gross, the Court answered questions it wasn't asked, reaching beyond the scope of what they accepted for appeal to overturn federal laws the conservative wing didn't like.

I mean, I don't speak Latin. But unless stare decisis means "overturn stuff," then maybe it's time for conservatives to stop calling other people "dangerous radicals."

Second, and more importantly: They've overturned the principle that the law should be a place where ordinary people can turn for relief when wronged by the powerful.

At the front entrance to the Supreme Court building here in Washington, beneath the words "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW," there's a set of 1,300-pound bronze doors.

Countless Americans have flowed through those doors to see the place where that principle is protected.

Now those doors have been locked to the public. Things have changed.

---
Supreme Court jurisprudence involves weighing competing interests.

Most Americans are familiar with cases in which the Court has had to balance individual rights against some compelling state interest.

It's easy to feel disconnected from these cases. Even though the government has awesome power - enough to take away your freedom, or even your life - the degree to which that power is deemed to supersede your individual rights doesn't really enter into the daily lives of most Americans.

But there's more than one kind of power.

If you have a credit card, if you watch TV, if you file insurance claims, if you work - in other words, if you participate in American daily life at all - then you interact with corporations that are more powerful than you are.

The degree to which those corporations' rights are protected over yours, well, that's extremely relevant to your life.

And in case after case after case, the Roberts Court has put not just a thumb, but a fist, on the scale in favor of those corporations.

A fist with brass knuckles. Which weigh a lot. Because they're brass.

It's important to recognize that, for some conservative legal activists, this is the whole point. Do they want to undercut abortion and immigration and Miranda rights? Sure. But those are just cherries on the sundae.

What conservative legal activists are really interested in is this question: What individual rights are so basic and so important that they should be protected above a corporation's right to profit?

And their preferred answer is: None of them. Zero.

More than a century ago, in Lochner, the Court held that a state cannot intervene to protect the interests of an individual entering into a work relationship with an employer.

In other words, the Court held that employees should have to fend for themselves against the same powerful corporations they rely on for a paycheck.

Last month, Rand Paul, the Republican Senate candidate down in Kentucky, got into some hot water for suggesting that we really shouldn't have used the law to force private businesses to stop discriminating against African-Americans, that the market would have eventually handled it.

My question was: In what year would the market have gotten around to doing that? 1965? 1967? 1987? 1997?

Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act deals with the workplace, because your rights at work are civil rights.

And without legal protection, workers would have no leverage to secure those basic rights: the right to organize and bargain for better wages, the right to a safe work environment, the right not to get fired because of who you are.

It's a nightmare for progressives, but a dream for powerful economic elites and their legal activist allies: a return to Lochner, to a system of corporate authoritarianism where business giants hold all the cards and workers have to hope that the market will someday provide them with basic rights.

---
Those elites are well on their way.

The Roberts Court has systematically dismantled the legal protections that help ordinary people find justice when wronged by the economically powerful.

In Stoneridge, it stripped shareholders of their ability to get their money back from the firms that helped defraud them.

In Conkright, it gave employers more leeway to deny workers their pension benefits.

In Leegin, it made it harder for small business owners to stop price fixing under the Sherman Act. Now, the burden is on them--small business owners--to show that price fixing will hurt competition.

In Iqbal, it made it harder for everybody to get their day in court.

In Exxon, it capped punitive damages resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill because, get this, having to own up to your mistakes creates "unpredictability" for corporations. Which, by the way, means that BP's liability may be capped because the Court doesn't want to cause an unpredictable impact on its future profitability.

In Rapanos, it cut huge swaths of wetlands out of the Clean Water Act. Wetlands that had been covered for 30 years.

You know what has a lot of wetlands? Minnesota. No, really. You know what else has a lot of wetlands? The Gulf Coast.

I could spend a long time talking about how these cases were wrongly decided. But I'm not an academic - and these aren't academic issues.

These decisions affect real people. They hurt real people.

Jamie Leigh Jones is a real person who went to work for KBR, then a Halliburton subsidiary. When she arrived in Iraq in July of 2005, she immediately complained to her supervisors about sexual harassment in her barracks, which housed over 400 men and only a handful of women.

KBR just mocked her. Then, four days after she got to Iraq, she was drugged and gang-raped by several of her co-workers. When she woke up, she struggled to the infirmary and had a doctor administer a rape kit, which KBR promptly lost.

Then, Jamie was locked in a shipping container under armed guard and prohibited from any contact with the outside world.

Because of the Court's decision in Circuit City, KBR had been able to force new employees like Jamie to sign a contract requiring that any future disputes be arbitrated in secret and not in open court.

So Jamie Leigh Jones spent four years fighting for her right just to get her day in court after her employer put her in a dangerous situation, ignored her concerns, and kept her hostage in a shipping container after she was gang-raped.

Lilly Ledbetter is a real person who worked as a manager at a Goodyear tire plant in Gadsden, Alabama. Towards the end of 20 years of service there, she noticed that her male co-workers had gotten more and better raises. By 1998, when she took early retirement, she was earning several hundred dollars less per month than her male counterparts. So she sued.

But the Court decided to give Goodyear maximum leeway to avoid responsibility for pay discrimination, thanks to the most unbelievable loophole you can imagine. The law requires that discrimination claims be brought within 180 days. The Court decided that this meant within 180 days - from the time Goodyear started discriminating against Lilly, not the most recent discriminatory check.

And Lilly lost out on a chance to recoup years of wage increases that were illegally withheld just because she's a woman.

---
Now, the judiciary is just one branch of our system. I was proud to pass legislation giving victims like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. And I was thrilled to see that the very first bill President Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

But even as it has closed the door on ordinary Americans looking for justice in the legal system, this Court has made it harder for the political system to address these injustices.


In Citizens United, the Roberts Court overstepped its procedural bounds so that it could graciously provide corporations with First Amendment rights and, by the way, open the door to foreign entities deciding our elections.

But, again, as bad a piece of jurisprudence as that decision was, even worse could be the ramifications it will have on the lives of real people.

Well into the 1960s, oil companies didn't want to stop putting lead in gasoline despite the fact that they knew how dangerous it was.

But Congress passed the Clean Air Act anyway. And the percentage of children with elevated levels of lead in their blood dropped 84 per cent over the next quarter century.

And around that same time, our car companies still didn't want to put seat belts in cars, even though they knew it would save lives.

But Congress passed the Motor Vehicle Safety Act anyway. And by the year 2000, the fatality rate from car accidents had dropped 71 per cent.

Both laws passed just a couple of months before midterm elections.

Does anybody think either would have stood a chance if Standard Oil and GM had been able to spend millions of dollars in those campaigns?

In Citizens United, the Court didn't just abdicate its duty to subject efforts to impair our political process to strict scrutiny. It served as an accomplice to such an effort.

Not satisfied with giving corporations a leg up on individuals under the law, the Roberts Court is trying to prevent the American people from fighting back.

---
Bummed out yet? Well, we're finally in a good position to fight back.

It took the conservative legal movement decades to produce this activist Supreme Court. We're still in our first decade. But already the American Constitution Society has established itself as a major force in our legal system.

And while we often continue to struggle to get our nominees confirmed and our message heard, we have a President who understands that our legal system is broken when it favors the powerful over the powerless, and I know for a fact that I'm not the only Senator ready to take action.

So let's talk about what we can do.

Right now, I'm co-sponsoring legislation called the DISCLOSE Act that would force the heads of corporate-sponsored advocacy groups to appear in their ads, require corporations to tell their shareholders what they're spending political dollars on, prohibit corporations from who receive taxpayer dollars from telling taxpayers how to vote, and keep foreign-controlled corporations out of our elections.

It's a start.

But it's important to recognize that Citizens United is really the first major shot fired in a coming battle over information, a battle that extends beyond paid political advertising.

For instance, I'm very concerned about media consolidation. If we care about public debate, then it matters who runs our media companies.

The trend is towards vertical integration of the companies who produce the programs Americans rely on for information, and the companies who run the pipes through which Americans receive those programs.

Executives at both Comcast and NBC Universal swear that they're not interested in corporate control of programming. I used to work at NBC; I know better. And I'm very worried about this merger.

We should also be very worried about efforts to undermine the free flow of information on the Internet.

Right now, a blog loads just as quickly as a corporate webpage. An email from your mother comes through just as smoothly as a bill notification from your bank. An independent bookstore can process your order as quickly as Barnes and Noble.

But top telecommunications companies have declared their interest in offering "prioritized" Internet service for companies who can pay for it. This could lead to the creation of a high-speed lane for wealthy corporations and transform the Internet from an open playing field into yet another place where powerful economic elites have a bigger megaphone than the rest of us.

Some of the same people who were instrumental in the Federalist Society's effort to change our legal system are now working to help corporations increase their control over the flow of information.

If you control the flow of information, you can control the conversation around important issues. If you can control the conversation, you can change this country.

---
But we can't be satisfied with stopping conservatives and their corporate clients from controlling the narrative when it comes to our legal system.

We have to fight back with our own.

In our narrative, the legal system doesn't exist to help the powerful grow more powerful - it exists to guarantee that every American is entitled to justice.

In our narrative, we defend our individual rights and liberties against corporate encroachment just as fiercely as we defend them against government overreach.

In our narrative, judicial restraint actually means something - for starters, how about ruling only on the case you're presented?

In our narrative, even if those big bronze doors have to remain closed for security reasons, the door to our legal system should be open to everyone, because what happens in our legal system matters to everyone.

If you followed my career before I got to the Senate, you know that I'm a big believer in speaking truth to power, and in the power of telling the truth.

To legal scholars and lovers of our constitution, the truth about what's happened over the last 30 years is at the heart of our struggle to restore balance to our courts and wisdom to our laws.

But I gotta be honest with you: That's not why I'm here tonight. And I think you know that, or you would have invited a lawyer.

I'm here tonight because, for the people I represent in Minnesota and for regular working people all over the country, that truth is at the heart of their struggle, too.

Their struggle to earn a fair wage at a job that treats them well. Their struggle to live their lives free of corporate intrusions into their privacy. Their struggle to breathe clean air and drink clean water. Their struggle to find justice when they're wronged.

I know how important it is that our legal system support individuals in that struggle. And so do you. But most people don't. And we have to change that.

The American Constitution Society has a role to play in the national conversation around our Constitution and our laws. And not just within the walls of a debating society.

Ordinary Americans have to understand what's at stake for them in all this. And that means someone has to bring them into the debate.

It is my hope that you will. And it is my great honor to stand with you in that fight.

Thank you.

"Congressman Barton's statements this morning were wrong," House GOP leaders John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mike Pence said in a written statement. "BP itself has acknowledged that responsibility for the economic damages lies with them and has offered an initial pledge of $20 billion dollars for that purpose."

Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., said he was "shocked" by Barton's "reprehensible comments that the government should apologize for the 'shakedown' of BP."

"I condemn Mr. Barton's statement," Miller said in a written statement. "Mr. Barton's remarks are out of touch with this tragedy and I feel his comments call into question his judgment and ability to serve in a leadership position on the Energy and Commerce Committee. He should step down as ranking member of the committee."

"I want the record to be absolutely clear that I think BP is responsible for this accident, should be held responsible, and should in every way do everything possible to make good on the consequences that have resulted from this accident," Barton said later in the day during the committee hearing. "And if anything I said this morning has been misconstrued in an opposite effect, I want to apologize for that misconstruction."

Later in the day, Barton issued a statement in which the Texas Republican apologized "for using the term 'shakedown' with regard to yesterday's actions at the White House" and retracted his "apology to BP."

There is now a CAP of 75 MILLION on damages for oil spills.

Setting up this escrow amounts to EXTORTION.

Had they not agreed to it, Obama would have villified them to the point of their stock being WORTHLESS.

Yea - totally a Chicago Style shakedown.

How can you scream for due process for terrorists and NOT give due process to BP?

Who exactly is going to decide who gets the money?

Does this sound ANYTHING like the government our founding fathers set up?

What choice did BP have BUT to agree?

If they fought the President on this the PR problem would have caused their share price to fall to almost nothing...

That is what the COURT system is for!

Does no one respect the Constitution anymore???

Well if YOU get sued, do YOU want YOUR case decided by a jury of YOUR peers, or by a bureaucrat?

We either live by the rule of LAW, or we DON'T...

I've never said BP shouldn't pay. I said they are entitled to DUE PROCESS.

The facts, the liability, who gets paid, and WHEN, is not for you and I, or President Obama to decide.
It is for a COURT to decide.

I didn't say this belongs in criminal court.

It obviously belongs in a civil court, or can I not safely assume liberals understand even THAT?

What I want to know is who is going to decide who gets the escrow money they were forced to cough up in advance?

What if BP doesn't agree to settle a PARTICULAR claim because they deny liability? Then what?

Do the people who own rental homes on the coast get a check for lost revenue?

Do I get a check because the cost of my seafood went up?

Who is going to decide who gets that money, for what claims, and when?

What happens if BP says we are not going to pay for anything at all?

Also if the 20 billion is paid, one would think that it would be place directly in the hands of the gulf coast victims by BP officials.

No need for the government to get their hands on it, it should go directly to the gulf coast residents.

and infringing upon corporate sovereignty

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said he disagreed with Barton's statement.

The use of the BP escrow fund is intended to avoid a repeat of the painful aftermath of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil disaster in Alaska, when the fight over money dragged out in courts for roughly two decades.

Campaign for Fair Elections, a nonpartisan campaign reform advocacy group, blasted Barton for his comments, noting that he has received $27,000 from BP in campaign contributions since 1989 and $1.4 million from the oil & gas industry.

"It's amazing that Rep. Barton would stand up for a multinational corporation that has wrecked the livelihoods of so many people along the Gulf Coast," said David Donnelly, campaign manager for the group. "Comments like this make all Americans question whether Congress represents them or the special interests funding their campaign."

On Wednesday, President Obama announced that BP had agreed to set up a $20 billion relief fund that will be led by the administration's "pay czar," Kenneth Feinberg, who oversaw the $7 billion government fund for families of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

You also make a lot of assumptions about the quality of that (those) informant(s).

The article you linked to reported that two informants were involved.

I have not seen that any issue was taken with the validity of the warrant

Are you absolutely sure that this is all that is needed to obtain a warrant to search a house? Seems pretty flimsy to me...

I did get slightly annoyed when the King was killed on the battlefield in the though... slight historical inaccuracy, as he was actually poisoned.

super_ryan isn't getting it either, obviously.

no, "human capital" is the only real value of modern "money"...

According to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), Debits always go on the left side and credits go on the right.
For accounting purposes on the balance sheet debits ( assets) on the left, credits (liabilities) on the right. On the profit and loss sheet where revenue and expenses are listed, revenues are credit and the expenses are debits.

The accounts receivable would increase for they are looking forward to their mortgage being repaid. Accounts payable would be money the bank has to pay to another.

We almost never grant mortgages in the U.S. We now most often use deeds of trust.

If not why does the home owner have to carry: mortgage insurance (if below a certain down payment, equity in the home)

when I say that a contract "obligates" a party to have a security available, i mean just that -- the security must be available or the contract terms have not been met

Super, taking an accounting class or two doesn't make anyone an expert.

that the question of ownership is superseded by the terms of the contract

Contracts muddle the accounting grounds.

For example, put and calls, derivatives contracts, gives you the option of buying or selling securities within a specified time period.

The contract puts the question of "ownership" in "limbo," so to speak.

The owner of the securities, having agreed to either buy or sell within a given time frame, is now obligated to have the securities available should be "option" be activated.

The securities are now placed under conditions specified in the contract.

I'm not an expert,

here's another important point. the ONLY difference between a credit and a debt is time. credit is deferred payment, whereas debt is a due payment. now,

when you get a loan from a bank -- whether it's a mortgage or just a line of credit -- do you imagine they are actually giving you money? nope. they are merely making a bookkeeping entry into your account. there is no real exchange taking place.

this means that every time you, as a consumer, get a loan from a bank, or use your credit card to buy anything, you are creating out of thin air the PRINCIPAL

and then the bank charges you INTEREST on the assets that YOU just created FOR THEM

the bank gets to collect on both!

do you realize how much damage could be un-done merely by forgiving interest?

if you are in the U.S., look at your dollar bill, a.k.a. "federal reserve note". and what is a "note"? it's a debt, of course. now who can tell me... how can you ever pay a debt, with a debt?

does anyone really get this? the implications are actually rather mind-boggling.
take the red pill, people.

looks like a mini doberman (can't think of the breed name)

but you don't hear about the ones lost to foriegners HERE in America.

My landlord stopped me in the hall yesterday. He said that the rent wasn't working for him, and that he'd need more. Why even sign a lease if the landlord is going to break it 2 months after I sign it?

To top it off, I'm letting him use my lawn mower for his lawn. Now he put a lock on the storage shed (Only he has the key) and wants me to give it to him.

With the US pulling jobs out of Canada and back inside the US Borders

Leave the poles alone, they are frozen and for the most part uninhabitable.

Using the Continental Shelf as a way to extend your borders is not how the 200 mile rule was intended, especially for the sake of a land grab, it's underwater and should not count.

How about if the United States deems the continental shelf off the cost of Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California to be the limits of our international border

Guess that means it's a long sail to the east coast of Canada just to head south doesn't it.

Wonder how Canada will then get to it's own West Coast if the US shuts down the Bering Straits?

Our boys and girls could sit in deck chairs on the battleships and play XBox while they did their jobs.

As far as Canada staying out of Iraq goes, don't fool yourselves, there are Canadian forces in Iraq

and Afghanistan at this time.

However, they are merely token forces there so if there are victories Canada can claim part of them.

In all honesty I found Toronto to be a beautiful city but I found all the other parts of Canada to be truly filthy at best.

Let's not even talk about the police forces in Canada

the medical care and so many other things.

I'd be thrilled if the US shut down our northern border and denied passage to all Canadians,

then let our oil companies start drilling and pumping like crazy along the borders of all northern states (Minnesota, North Dakota, Idaho, Montana and Washington) and Alaska where they meet Canada.

Canada has spent centuries leeching of the United States

it's time that Canada learns to stand and think on it's own and quit taking things from us

Yes, I consider a vehicle built in Canada to be foreign which is why I have never and will never own a Corvette, unless they start building those in the United States again.

People so ignorant as to think that Chevrolet was a Canadian Company and not a US owned company

I was literally subjected to people yelling at me for Canadian economic issues simply due to the fact that I'm an American and nothing else.

This is some scary shit.

First they'd have to remember what a gun is.

What is a locker?

in 2000 the Derivative market was zero.... 2008 .....$900 TRILLION dollars traded.... That is a bubble.

Real weak. Hell, I could probably make a better case against her in 20 minutes, should I try.

well, if Bettman(a yank) is an idiot (and i believe he is one)...

then what can be said of the NHL(canadian)board of govs who decided to hire him?....and then keep him for 20 yrs!!!

i remember there being some talk a few yrs ago about the NHL, doing away with the off-side rules.......and Bettman supposedly was a proponent of this!

That's what I thought. You have no evidence for your claims, you just have a case of sour grapes.

I told you this was fixed, Canada was gonna win, it's pre planned, both mens and women, figure it out

Enjoy your fake win

do I have to teach you everything?

We invented ski-doos, jet-skis, Velcro, zippers, insulin, penicillin, zambonis and the telephone. Also short wave radios that save countless lives each year.