March 28, 2012
— Gabriel Malor Happy Wednesday.
Today is the Supreme Court's final day of argument on Obamacare. 90 minutes will be devoted to whether the mandate is severable from the rest of the law. Then 30 minutes will go to the issue of the Medicaid mandate imposed on the states.
In my interview yesterday morning with Rep. Phil Roe, the Tennessee congressman said that he believed that this is one of the most important cases since Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education. Rep. Roe's comment seemed to presage the observation from Justice Kennedy that the individual mandate changes the relationship between the government and the person "in a fundamental way" requiring a "heavy burden of justification." I've now heard Justice Kennedy's comment on the broadcast national news last night, the local TV news last night, the FM radio station I'm listening to as I type this, and the local TV news this morning.
My concern is that Justice Kennedy might just find an extraordinary justification for the individual mandate. That's precisely what the Obama Administration has been arguing: "healthcare is different." That was, by the way, the same language that several congressmen used to explain why their constituents are opposing Obamacare.
Rep. Diane Black explained that people are concerned by the uncertainty in not knowing what's going to hit them next in something so fundamentally important as health care. Rep. Phil Gingrey said that the number one concern of his constituents is that they don't want the federal government to have that much involvement in their lives.
Each of the congressmen I talked to said that either way the Supreme Court rules, more reform is needed. Rep. Wally Herger had the strongest statement on that, vowing "we're not going to stop until we repeal Obamacare." Sen. Ron Johnson suggested that there were many reforms that will help lower costs of healthcare. He cited as examples health savings accounts and opening up the insurance market as much as possible as a free market. Sen. Johnson noted that where the free market fails, for example with individuals who have serious preexisting conditions, the states have seen success with high-risk pools.
Finally, I want to share with you a story from Sen. Johnson I did not know before talking with him yesterday. Johnson explained that he was particularly offended during the Obamacare debate when the President suggested that money-grubbing doctors would unnecessarily "come after your tonsils" or amputate a leg. Johnson explained that his daughter was born with a serious heart condition and that doctors---doctors like the ones that Obama was demonizing---had saved her life after extraordinary efforts. It was, Johnson said, one of the things that impelled him to run for his Senate seat. Johnson noted that, under Obamacare, innovative treatments---like that which saved his daughter---would be limited not according to doctors' decisions, but the decisions of bureaucrats in Washington.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
02:57 AM
| Comments (335)
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.
http://is.gd/OKCgV7
Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2012 02:57 AM (YdQQY)
http://is.gd/U7eVER
Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2012 02:58 AM (YdQQY)
http://is.gd/IYFCnR
Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2012 02:58 AM (YdQQY)
http://is.gd/bkVDy1
Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2012 02:59 AM (YdQQY)
http://is.gd/whHWfw
Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2012 02:59 AM (YdQQY)
http://is.gd/FRMCoR
Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2012 03:00 AM (YdQQY)
http://is.gd/FHosNo
Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2012 03:00 AM (YdQQY)
http://is.gd/8e1iYC
Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2012 03:00 AM (YdQQY)
http://is.gd/zyVDkO
Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2012 03:00 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2012 03:01 AM (YdQQY)
Vic, I believe @4 should be $2B, but they're still getting gypped.
As for the Mustang, "Dear Santa Claus, I've been a good Boy this year..."
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 28, 2012 03:03 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 28, 2012 03:05 AM (d0Tfm)
---------------------------------\
You're right, should be 2B, not 2M. Big big gyp.
Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2012 03:06 AM (YdQQY)
As for the Mustang, "Dear Santa Claus, I'll be a good Boy next year..."
Posted by: Nash Rambler at March 28, 2012 03:06 AM (b6FgX)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 28, 2012 03:06 AM (Af3Wg)
----------------------------
LOL, with this nice weather that porch rocker has probably got too much attention lately.
Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2012 03:08 AM (YdQQY)
"LOL, with this nice weather that porch rocker has probably got too much attention lately. "
Unpossible.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 28, 2012 03:10 AM (d0Tfm)
I didn't link it because of the horrid photo and I didn't want to frighten the Morons this morning.
Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2012 03:11 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: BurtTC at March 28, 2012 03:12 AM (Gc/Qi)
Posted by: McLovin at March 28, 2012 03:14 AM (j0IcY)
Posted by: BurtTC at March 28, 2012 03:19 AM (Gc/Qi)
This bureaucratic board (aka "death panel") is horrifying to me. Unelectable and unanswerable to the public, I can see that normal folks will be told "no" but well-connected political people will get all the treatment they want. It will be like getting health care in the Soviet Union.
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 28, 2012 03:19 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: BurtTC at March 28, 2012 03:23 AM (Gc/Qi)
Or fixing my son's club foot, his syndactily and the other birth defects he had...
The government has no business in our business. This law needs to go down in flames, taking the SCOAMF's hopes for reelection with it.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 28, 2012 03:24 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: McLovin at March 28, 2012 03:27 AM (j0IcY)
Damn! I wish I had heard about that! I could have achieved fame and fortune by starting an internet meme with it. FML
Posted by: s☺mej☼e at March 28, 2012 03:29 AM (udEUT)
Posted by: Jimmah at March 28, 2012 03:29 AM (UpwlP)
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 28, 2012 03:30 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: NO_LIMIT_NINJA at March 28, 2012 03:31 AM (8/nTx)
Posted by: nickless at March 28, 2012 03:32 AM (MMC8r)
I don't know what you expected them to do. They broke Senate procedure to vote on it. We had people on every TV show talking about how bad it was; for gosh sakes, there were people at town halls and out in the streets protesting!
So, exactly what other efforts do you think they should have made to stop it? I thought they did well in putting up objections and fighting it given that they didn't have the numbers.
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 28, 2012 03:34 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: soothsayer at March 28, 2012 03:35 AM (BUcLz)
Posted by: NO_LIMIT_NINJA at March 28, 2012 03:36 AM (8/nTx)
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 28, 2012 03:38 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: McLovin at March 28, 2012 03:38 AM (j0IcY)
Notice how the emphasis is placed on the expenditures that Washington will make in connection with health care costs as the justification for controlling your life.
All of a sudden they're worried about money...
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 28, 2012 03:39 AM (d0Tfm)
Posted by: NO_LIMIT_NINJA at March 28, 2012 03:39 AM (8/nTx)
Ok. Maybe.
But not one person had the sense to argue that Obamacare is not about Health Care. Obamacare forces you to buy an insurance product. The insurers that you are forced to deal with are at least one or two steps removed from those who provide you with Health Care.
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at March 28, 2012 03:40 AM (UTq/I)
In February, I received a kidney transplant after waiting 4 years. I was lucky. UNOS, the organization that sets the rules for organ allocation, has been considering changing those rules. They want to add a consideration that would match the age of the donor with the age of the recipient. Their idea is that a young person could live longer than an older person with an organ from a young person. I am 51. I got a kidney from a 37yo. Under those rules, I might have been considered too old for that organ.
Just imagine if those types of rules were enforced by the government.
Posted by: Zombie John Gotti at March 28, 2012 03:41 AM (Gkhxf)
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 28, 2012 03:41 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: Jimmah at March 28, 2012 03:41 AM (UpwlP)
Posted by: McLovin at March 28, 2012 03:42 AM (j0IcY)
Posted by: NO_LIMIT_NINJA at March 28, 2012 03:43 AM (8/nTx)
We can only hope that today's subject of severability gets a thorough examination. I'd love it if, in the Prog/Coms haste to get this bill passed, they screwed it up.
Sweet, sweet lefty tears are the Nectar of the Gods.
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 28, 2012 03:45 AM (d0Tfm)
Did you want them to hit Nancy Pelosi over the head and take hostages? Please explain what action you wanted them to take.
I fail to see the rationale in blaming anyone but the democrats, who are the ones who created the monstrosity, voted it in, and signed it.
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 28, 2012 03:45 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: Jimmah at March 28, 2012 03:47 AM (UpwlP)
Real world example of socialized medicine rationing:
Due to lack of bedspace, now in Canada they're starting to house drug rehab junkies and mentally ill lunatics in nursing homes.
So Grandma and Grandpa don't just have to worry about getting overly medicated, tied to their beds and neglected, now they get to catch a beatdown from an 18 year old drug offender.
But it's "free".
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 28, 2012 03:48 AM (JDIKC)
OK, 'rons 'n 'ettes, I'm outta here. The salt mine calleth.
Have fun and try not to trash the place, 'k?
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at March 28, 2012 03:49 AM (d0Tfm)
Earth Hour Approaches: Be Prepared
http://t.co/51dLTLom
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 28, 2012 03:50 AM (hO8IJ)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 28, 2012 03:51 AM (hO8IJ)
Posted by: San Antonio Rose at March 28, 2012 03:51 AM (rtvsq)
Posted by: Jimmah at March 28, 2012 03:51 AM (UpwlP)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 28, 2012 03:51 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: McLovin at March 28, 2012 03:51 AM (j0IcY)
Posted by: soothsayer at March 28, 2012 03:52 AM (8dspl)
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 28, 2012 07:34AM (GoIUi)
It's easy to pretend you're against something when you don't have the numbers to stop it. If they were serious they would have refused to raise the debt limit unless Obamacare was repealed.
Posted by: schizoid at March 28, 2012 03:52 AM (sxkY6)
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at March 28, 2012 03:53 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: Jimmah at March 28, 2012 03:54 AM (UpwlP)
http://tinyurl.com/3pgtbnq
He is a heart transplant recipient. So this is all, you know, about Cheney.
Posted by: comatus at March 28, 2012 03:56 AM (ZOlM3)
It's easy to pretend you're against something when you don't have the numbers to stop it. If they were serious they would have refused to raise the debt limit unless Obamacare was repealed.<<<
That wasn't the hill to die on. We were keeping our powder dry. We were saving nine with a stich in time. Making sure we had closed the cover before striking.
And various other mealy mouthed excuses for not having any balls.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 28, 2012 03:56 AM (JDIKC)
Posted by: NO_LIMIT_NINJA at March 28, 2012 03:57 AM (8/nTx)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 28, 2012 03:58 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: soothsayer at March 28, 2012 03:59 AM (Ba6aP)
Unemployed will have work-search records checked
http://t.co/sBr99ltX
Of course, it says "most." Would love to know who gets excepted. (Have my suspicions....)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 28, 2012 04:00 AM (hO8IJ)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 28, 2012 04:01 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: McLovin at March 28, 2012 04:02 AM (j0IcY)
If the court allows Obamacare to stand, I would suggest that civil disobedience could follow. Men with children denied care would become hyperactive, and armed confrontation could easily become the norm.
Liberals are playing with fire and have no understanding of the consequence. When Admiral Yamamoto said, “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.” That accurately describes a nation that denies its most vulnerable adequate care. The giant will seek retribution with sure and swift justice.
Posted by: Doctor Fish at March 28, 2012 04:03 AM (TkGkA)
Posted by: soothsayer at March 28, 2012 04:03 AM (KUrJA)
Posted by: NO_LIMIT_NINJA at March 28, 2012 04:04 AM (8/nTx)
Also, if you say youll investigate Landrieau's shady deal, do it.
Posted by: Baraka Fork tongue at March 28, 2012 04:05 AM (udEUT)
Wasn't that a Denzel movie?
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 28, 2012 04:05 AM (hO8IJ)
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 28, 2012 04:06 AM (hO8IJ)
Obamacare needs to be declared unconstitutional, but then the debate beginsÂ…
As a huge supporter of Death Panels, government-run single payer catastrophic healthcare, individual non-catastrophic health savings accounts and a direct fee-for-service model between patients and providers, I welcome the argument.
Posted by: jwest at March 28, 2012 04:06 AM (FdndL)
Posted by: soothsayer at March 28, 2012 04:06 AM (8dspl)
I can't cut the Repubs any slack on 0bamacare. Yes they were outnumbered when 0bamacare passed initially, but once granted power in the House, due in no small part to the reaction from 0bmamcare (thanks TEA party), they squandered their integrity (lead by Boner and supported by Bitch) and refused to use the Constitutionally granted power of the purse to control any aspect of the prog agenda (let alone 0bamacare). They couldn't even muster up the balls to repeal the light bulb ban.
Torches, pitchforks, tar, and feathers are far too good for them.
Posted by: Hrothgar at March 28, 2012 04:06 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Case at March 28, 2012 04:07 AM (6ffrc)
I don't think you can hang Alan Keyes on "The Establishment."
He's a fucking nutbar like Ronulus Prime who serves no one but his selfish interests.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at March 28, 2012 04:07 AM (JDIKC)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 28, 2012 04:08 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: McLovin at March 28, 2012 04:08 AM (j0IcY)
here was some formatting in the stuff you pasted from a website. Try pasting into Notepad, then re-copying before pasting into here.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 28, 2012 08:06 AM (hO8IJ)
I cut and pasted the Yamamoto quote to Word, and then retyped it. I thought by deleting the original it erased all goop, but that is apparently not correct.
Posted by: Doctor Fish at March 28, 2012 04:09 AM (TkGkA)
Posted by: Darth The Plumber at March 28, 2012 04:09 AM (ZEHhD)
Posted by: Pixy Misalith at March 28, 2012 04:10 AM (JDIKC)
I miss italics.
Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 28, 2012 04:11 AM (hO8IJ)
Posted by: Beto at March 28, 2012 04:11 AM (ZEHhD)
Posted by: NO_LIMIT_NINJA at March 28, 2012 04:12 AM (8/nTx)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 28, 2012 08:08 AM (niZvt)
Dear Sir/Madam/other
your comment time before the independent comment advisory board on why you don't support Obmamcare has been scheduled from 0301 to 0302 in our star chamber on the twelfth of Never.
Regards
Uncle Ubongo
Posted by: Hrothgar at March 28, 2012 04:12 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Hayabusa at March 28, 2012 04:13 AM (wG0z7)
Posted by: McLovin at March 28, 2012 04:13 AM (j0IcY)
No discrepancy. None at all...
Mich. militia members cleared of charges that accused them of plotting war against government (AP) WaPo:
"U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts said the Hutaree militia membersÂ’ expressed hatred of law enforcement didnÂ’t amount to a conspiracy to rebel against the government, gutting Attorney General Holder's case against seven members of the Michigan organizatioin, dismissing the most serious charges in an extraordinary defeat for federal authorities who insisted they had captured homegrown rural extremists poised for war."
“It’s hard to believe it’s over,” said Tina Stone, crying as she spoke by phone. “Thank God we live in a country where we do have freedom of speech.”
Posted by: panzernashorn at March 28, 2012 04:15 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Hayabusa at March 28, 2012 08:13 AM (wG0z7)
Anyone with an unaccountable lifetime sinecure that lives in DC or its environs should be viewed with suspicion.
Posted by: Hrothgar at March 28, 2012 04:15 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Beto at March 28, 2012 04:15 AM (ZEHhD)
Posted by: McLovin at March 28, 2012 08:13 AM (j0IcY)
Wait until you see what we wind up driving (on the days when we are allowed to drive).
Posted by: Hrothgar at March 28, 2012 04:16 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: McLovin at March 28, 2012 04:16 AM (j0IcY)
Posted by: NO_LIMIT_NINJA at March 28, 2012 04:17 AM (8/nTx)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 28, 2012 04:17 AM (niZvt)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 04:18 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Hrothgar at March 28, 2012 08:06 AM (i3+c5)
But they sure did a good job of pretending to repeal it, didn't they? Lots of people think that it was repealed and haven't bothered to check store shelves. The GOP might be able to ride this bit of bullshit all the way to the election.
Posted by: schizoid at March 28, 2012 04:19 AM (sxkY6)
Posted by: Hayabusa at March 28, 2012 04:20 AM (wG0z7)
Posted by: panzernashorn at March 28, 2012 04:20 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: McLovin at March 28, 2012 04:20 AM (j0IcY)
Posted by: McLovin at March 28, 2012 08:16 AM (j0IcY)
I used to think it was because most of "us" conservatives were too busy working and raising families, and the left had no other life except to destroy what others had built. I would like to see some of the same level of fanaticism (24x7x365) on our side on every issue that threatens freedom, but I am not holding my breath (especially after watching Boner and Cantor screw the pooch in the House where they actually have power).
Posted by: Hrothgar at March 28, 2012 04:21 AM (i3+c5)
I cut and pasted the Yamamoto quote to Word...
Word and Wordpad copy all the hidden HTML formatting junk. MS Notepad strips it out. You can also check if you have hidden formatting junk before posting by using the View/Edit Source tool (< >
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at March 28, 2012 04:22 AM (7+pP9)
Burning incense and reading the auguries will also help.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 28, 2012 04:24 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: McLovin at March 28, 2012 04:24 AM (j0IcY)
Oh, I don't know- not let it pass out of committee? Commit to having it read, on the floor, word-for-word? After withholding unanimous consent, not allowing an amendment to be withdrawn (which was against the rules, so they could have objected). File their own hundred+ page "amendments" (yes, they'd go down in flames) and then require that those be read on the Senate/House Floor?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 04:25 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 28, 2012 04:25 AM (42CLh)
Which is why the "true conservatives" who claim they'll stay home on Election Day if Romney is the nominee piss me the FUCK off.
Posted by: Hayabusa at March 28, 2012 08:20 AM (wG0z7)
A vote for Romney is also a vote for a never ending line up of Doles, McCains, Grahams, Snowes, etc.
Posted by: Ed Anger - Certified Kos Kid at March 28, 2012 04:26 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: schizoid at March 28, 2012 04:28 AM (sxkY6)
Question on Obamacare for the legal types:
How can health insurance be considered interstate commerce when we don't allow the purchase of health insurance across state lines?
Posted by: mugiwara at March 28, 2012 04:28 AM (W7ffl)
Good morning, all!
So, did anyone else have their gas prices jump up massively overnight? Mine went from $3.71 yesterday afternoon to $3.87 this morning. $0.16 in one night is a bit extreme for my neck of the woods!
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at March 28, 2012 04:28 AM (4df7R)
Posted by: s☺mej☼e at March 28, 2012 04:28 AM (udEUT)
Posted by: McLovin at March 28, 2012 08:16 AM (j0IcY)
**
Cuz we are too busy producing and taking care of our own. We have lives.
Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2012 04:29 AM (8ieXv)
lightbulb.
Actually, the GOP didn't "allow" they helped.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 04:29 AM (8y9MW)
This is what I would like to have seen concerning Obamacare and congress.
youtube.com/ watch?v=U3DHKnilmu8 (remove the space after the backslash).
Posted by: Darth Randall at March 28, 2012 04:30 AM (O/onO)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 28, 2012 04:31 AM (Af3Wg)
Posted by: s☺mej☼e at March 28, 2012 08:28 AM (udEUT)
*
Yes, but she has the hottest body money can buy so its all good.
Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2012 04:33 AM (8ieXv)
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 28, 2012 04:34 AM (Af3Wg)
Posted by: Hayabusa at March 28, 2012 04:34 AM (wG0z7)
My concern is that Justice Kennedy might just find an extraordinary justification for the individual mandate
Mine too. Remember Sandra O'Connor found an ectraordinary justification for the government stealing people' s property in Kelo.
Moderates are moderates because they don't have strong underlying principles.
Posted by: Truman North at March 28, 2012 04:36 AM (I2LwF)
That's a good question.
What sort of nominees did he send before the MA Senate when he was appointing justices to the MASC?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 04:36 AM (8y9MW)
136 Clarence Thomas is in his 60s, but, to be brutally frank, African-American men have, in general, shorter life expectancies than whites.
------
Thomas has been talking about quitting. Say's he'd make just as much on the Supreme Court in retirement than he would working.
Posted by: Jimmah at March 28, 2012 04:36 AM (UpwlP)
See we have these things called REP-REE-ZEN-TA-TIVS.
They are supposed to act as an AD-VO-KIT for us!
Our side doesn't do this nearly as effectively as the other side!
And in a lot of cases are not on our side! (Spectre, Maine,Snowe, Grahm, McCain,etc)
Posted by: McLovin at March 28, 2012 04:36 AM (j0IcY)
Posted by: Hayabusa at March 28, 2012 04:40 AM (wG0z7)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at March 28, 2012 04:41 AM (i0App)
What happened that had Kennedy in a snit with SCOAMF?
Sorry, have had my nose in the books these past weeks and days
Posted by: kawfytawk at March 28, 2012 04:42 AM (VIm97)
I'm 66 years old. I've been watching this seriously for over 40 years.
The Federal government has only gotten more intrusive in that time. The only advances in conservatism have come from the States, i.e., Firearms Carry, and little of that.
Government is the enemy, and the larger the government, the larger the enemy.
Posted by: minuteman (formerly trainer) until Juggy is gone at March 28, 2012 04:42 AM (Rojyk)
Posted by: NO_LIMIT_NINJA at March 28, 2012 04:43 AM (8/nTx)
Posted by: mugiwara at March 28, 2012 08:28 AM (W7ffl)
Because shut up that's why.
Posted by: Your betters in Congress-D at March 28, 2012 04:44 AM (3jGS1)
139 136 Clarence Thomas is in his 60s, but, to be brutally frank, African-American men have, in general, shorter life expectancies than whites.
I'm convinced it's the superior tasting food. I'd also like to see if their lifespan is shorter if it were corrected for smoking, hood violence, and not working out
Posted by: dagny loved andrew at March 28, 2012 04:45 AM (CMM9V)
Posted by: Blaster at March 28, 2012 04:45 AM (Fw2Gg)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at March 28, 2012 04:45 AM (IojUD)
I can't cut the Repubs any slack on 0bamacare. Yes they were outnumbered when 0bamacare passed initially, but once granted power in the House, due in no small part to the reaction from 0bmamcare (thanks TEA party), they squandered their integrity (lead by Boner and supported by Bitch) and refused to use the Constitutionally granted power of the purse to control any aspect of the prog agenda (let alone 0bamacare). They couldn't even muster up the balls to repeal the light bulb ban.
Torches, pitchforks, tar, and feathers are far too good for them.
Posted by: Hrothgar at March 28, 2012 08:06 AM (i3+c5)
I wrote that post on the second anniversary. People quibbled. I'm ready to burn the motherfucker down. Politically.
Posted by: Truman North at March 28, 2012 04:45 AM (I2LwF)
Posted by: mugiwara at March 28, 2012 08:28 AM (W7ffl)
Because, like an emanation of a penumbra, you might decide to cross state lines to seek treatment at the Mayo Clinic and expect to have your "state" regulated insurance pay for it. Presto, interstate "cost-sharing".
I agree, this is one of the many conundra associated with 0care. Levi
Posted by: Hrothgar at March 28, 2012 04:45 AM (i3+c5)
How about saying, "Why is a middle aged dude in Topeka, who is trying to put his kids through college, on the hook for the health insurance of some 20-something ne'r-do-well in Seattle?" Or even just, "No- that's not the business of the Federal Government. Stop it."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 04:46 AM (8y9MW)
Reps - over the cliff in a Model T
Different speeds, but the same destination. That is the reality of the establishment.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 28, 2012 08:34 AM (Af3Wg)
I'd say the car's already over the cliff and freefalling to the ground below.
Dems - stomping on the gas, wondering why the car won't go any faster
Reps - working on a ten year plan to tap the brake
Posted by: schizoid at March 28, 2012 04:46 AM (sxkY6)
Posted by: clueless barry at March 28, 2012 04:46 AM (y0VOX)
Only it wasn't his address. It was the address of a retired couple in their mid-70s, who are terrified of what may happen to them now that the howling mob of racial profilers has been directed their way.
All this is the handiwork of Marcus Davonne Higgins, a 33-year-old Los Angeles genius, who first twittered the info, and Spike Lee, hack filmmaker, who retwittered it.
Link to story in my nickname, below.
Posted by: Krebs v Carnot: Epic Battle of the Cycling Stars at March 28, 2012 04:47 AM (lce0m)
Posted by: minuteman (formerly trainer) until Juggy is gone at March 28, 2012 08:42 AM (Rojyk)
Scots-Irish?
Posted by: dagny loved andrew at March 28, 2012 04:48 AM (CMM9V)
http://is.gd/U7eVER
Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2012 06:58 AM (YdQQY)
I agree. They should sue him out of existence
Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 28, 2012 04:49 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: NO_LIMIT_NINJA at March 28, 2012 04:50 AM (8/nTx)
158 OT: the enlightened supporters of TrayVonnage, Tragically Murdered Urban Poet, broadcast the supposed address of Zimmerman via Twitter to all and sundry.
Only it wasn't his address. It was the address of a retired couple in their mid-70s, who are terrified of what may happen to them now that the howling mob of racial profilers has been directed their way.
All this is the handiwork of Marcus Davonne Higgins, a 33-year-old Los Angeles genius, who first twittered the info, and Spike Lee, hack filmmaker, who retwittered it.
Link to story in my nickname, below.
--------
Mid 70's is the age I HOPE a marxist mob will show up outside my house with pitch forks. Jesus, if you're reading this, please send me a mob of dumb shits to my house with pitch forks when I'm 70. I don't ask for much but if you coukd do this one thing...
Posted by: Jimmah at March 28, 2012 04:52 AM (UpwlP)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 08:46 AM (8y9MW)
You and I can appreciate that argument, but those who are over-grazing their sheep on the "free" commons see it as "There they go again, tryin' to take my free stuff!"
All problems have a solution, but the fundamental and universal problem is that most solutions come with more problems than they solve! The goal should not be Utopian, but rather the minimalist solution that achieves the most reasonable results.
Posted by: Hrothgar at March 28, 2012 04:55 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Hayabusa at March 28, 2012 04:55 AM (wG0z7)
Posted by: dagny loved andrew at March 28, 2012 04:55 AM (CMM9V)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - More than two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the way President Barack Obama is handling high gasoline prices, although most do not blame him for them, according to a Reuters/Ipsos online poll released on Tuesday.
Sixty-eight percent disapprove and 24 percent approve of how Obama is responding to price increases that have become one of the biggest issues in the 2012 presidential campaign.
How dumb or indoctrinated are the 24%?
"Obama is getting heat for it but people aren't necessarily blaming him for it," said Chris Jackson, research director for Ipsos public affairs.
"People are unhappy that they are having to pay $3.90 a gallon. They want somebody to be able to lash out at and the president is as good a person as anybody," Jackson said.
Oh so people are irrationally blaming Barry. Imagine the results if this douche doing the poll wasn't so in the bag for Barry
Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 28, 2012 04:56 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: dagny loved andrew at March 28, 2012 04:57 AM (CMM9V)
Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.
Iran thumbing their noses at us, while we refuse to support Israel. We're kowtowing to Pakistan while we've committed to not committing to winning in Afghanistan. China and Russia are, once again, seeing opportunities for ascendency, while President Gumby just wants them to wait until he has "more flexability."
Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.
AZ gets sued in Federal Court- by the US DoJ- for attempting to clamp down (in accordance with Federal Law, no less) on illegal immigration, while CA is coddled while allowing (in contempt of Federal Law) "sanctuary cities." President "What Illegal Aliens?" uses his privilege as President to assist his family in staying here illegally. Texas and other states are prevented from redistricting. Texas is told we can't have voter ID (It's somehow racist), while James O'Keefe III proves how easy it is to commit voter fraud.
Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.
I'm not voting for Mitt Romney in November. But I might just be persuaded to vote against Barack Obama- who is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 04:57 AM (8y9MW)
Kennedy: OK, I'll go along with this but I'm going to need you to tell me that you're only going to put in the tip.
Obama: I'm only going to put in the tip.
Kennedy: Good enough for me.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at March 28, 2012 04:58 AM (JxMoP)
And #64, yes, they could have done that. But exactly how do you think that would have gotten the bill repealed? Even if you could have stopped the press from demonizing the GOP and scaring everyone with how the debt limit was going to destroy the economy if it wasn't raised, you would have had to get it past the Senate and the potential for a filibuster, and then you would have had to get Obama to sign the repeal, which he wouldn't.
A lot of you are overestimating the powers that the GOP had before 2010, and are certainly not comprehending how difficult it is to get the Senate to pass anything Harry Reid doesn't like. And I am positive Obama will not sign a repeal.
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 28, 2012 04:59 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: Justamom at March 28, 2012 05:00 AM (Sptt8)
Posted by: NO_LIMIT_NINJA at March 28, 2012 05:00 AM (8/nTx)
Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 28, 2012 08:56 AM (1Jaio)
Why do none of the interviewers ever ask:
Assume that the presidunce cannot directly lower gas prices (world markets, speculators, blah, blah, then
"Tell me how increased supply created by on- and off-shore drilling in teh US, XL pipeline, frakking, etc., will INCREASE gas prices?"
Posted by: Hrothgar at March 28, 2012 05:00 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: Jimmah at March 28, 2012 08:52 AM (UpwlP)
*
Shhhhh.....Jimmah's having a Grand Torino moment.
Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2012 05:01 AM (8ieXv)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at March 28, 2012 05:02 AM (gPDxp)
I need a ruling on whether to have this unsightly wart removed from the White House, or to have it deemed sentient and claim it as a dependent.
Which option will garner a larger slice of that sweet, sweet entitlement pie?
Anxiously,
Spunk Water
Posted by: Spunk Water at March 28, 2012 05:02 AM (/ZZCn)
174 -
It could have been effectively repealed when the GOP refused to negotiate on the budget they passed 2 years ago, and dems shut down government and Barky was forced to prioritize. His idea of prioritizing would get him impeached. The economy wouldn't have crashed as they had predicted, and today Slow Joe would be one of the retards running on the dem ticket.
Posted by: Jimmah at March 28, 2012 05:03 AM (UpwlP)
Posted by: Zombie John Gotti at March 28, 2012 05:03 AM (Gkhxf)
Posted by: Justamom at March 28, 2012 05:03 AM (Sptt8)
I don't know if these statements are true, or not. What I do know is that the GOP is too cowardly to risk their precious political careers over the issue. Which tells me everything I need to know about their character.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 05:04 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at March 28, 2012 05:04 AM (gPDxp)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 28, 2012 05:05 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 28, 2012 08:59 AM
My memory of the events leading to the passage of StutteringClusterfuckCare reminds me that the final days were a kind of stare-down contest between Hairy Reid and Bitch McConnell. Bitch blinked, and stood aside to allow the final vote because he wanted to get home for Christmas.
The Republicans could have made more of a fuss and applied the same kind of procedural bullshit that the Democrats use to get their way, but The Bitch, like Weepy Boner, are too nice for that awful stuff. They might have looked bad or had their friends across the aisle mad at them if they actually, you know, stood up for principles or something.
I agree that this whole mess belongs to the Democrats. The Repubs were (and are) only weak-kneed enablers.
Posted by: MrScribbler at March 28, 2012 05:06 AM (MQc8e)
They're saying you must have gov't-mandated health insurance. There's no guarantee that insurance can be used to obtain care (bureaucrats, panels, algorithms). Most Americans (present company excepted) are too stupid to realize there's a distinction between "insurance that pays for some portion of medical treatment costs" and "medical treatment."
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 28, 2012 05:07 AM (ZKzrr)
Piece of catshit wouldn't even bring light bulb amnesty up for a vote.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 28, 2012 05:08 AM (ZKzrr)
Posted by Jimmah at March 28, 2012 08:52 AM (UpwlP)
When shit goes south in Florida thanks to "Race Baiters, Inc." (and I mean when, not if) I wonder how many people are going to be very happy there's a stand your ground law in that state. I know I would be.
Posted by: tsrblke at March 28, 2012 05:09 AM (SYrwI)
Posted by: akak at March 28, 2012 05:09 AM (vfQBi)
For two years (longer actually) the feds have been printing money, and using the money to buy t-bills. And if I'm not mistaken, the banks also use the newley minted money to loan to the feds for a guaranteed return instead of loaning it to people who would produce something for the same return.
Shutting it down over a budget stalemate and letting SCoaMF prioritize what to spend the non borrowed portion of the budget on would have been a boom to the economy IMO.
Of course there's always the 80% chance I don't know WTF I'm talking about, which puts me on the same pay scale as SCoaMF.
Posted by: Jimmah at March 28, 2012 05:10 AM (UpwlP)
Posted by: Jean at March 28, 2012 05:10 AM (OfinX)
Yep. More or less.
Which makes me wonder what caused those episodes.
A nervous break-down is one thing, but a near-psychotic break with paranoid delusions?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 05:11 AM (8y9MW)
I may love Ron Johnson more than I love Paul Ryan.
His real-world experience was running a company that makes plastic packaging for food and medical products--when you realize plastic is made from oil, that's a pretty broad swath of industries Obama et al designated for tighter federal control/destruction. Plus, he's an accountant.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 28, 2012 05:13 AM (ZKzrr)
I have never heard of any crew member going crazy like that. The only instance I can think of is the male flight attendant who called the passengers names, grabbed some drinks, and exited down the inflatable escape ramp.
Two people going insane like they are possessed, ranting about bombs, Iraq, and terrorists, and having to be retrained by passengers, all within two weeks.
I can't tell you how I am looking forward to my flight to London in May.
Posted by: Miss Marple at March 28, 2012 05:15 AM (GoIUi)
Two in a month nationwide is probably not unusual for any industry, but when someone bugs out in a software lab it doesn't make the news.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 28, 2012 05:15 AM (ZKzrr)
This is the "OMG, we tried this in 1995 and failed, so we must never, ever, ever try it again!" argument. If the Democrats thought that way there wouldn't be any Obamacare because a similar idea failed in 1993. But they don't think that way, which is why they win and we lose.
you would have had to get it past the Senate and the potential for a filibuster, and then you would have had to get Obama to sign the repeal, which he wouldn't
If the Dems don't want to play ball they don't have to, but then the debt limit doesn't get raised and spending needs to be cut to match revenues. Either way we win.
Posted by: schizoid at March 28, 2012 05:15 AM (sxkY6)
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at March 28, 2012 05:15 AM (r2PLg)
@AllenG, you would be surprised at the number of high functiong bipolar people in this world. Medical science is awesome! Of course the crash off your meds is pretty crazy, even switching from Med A to Med B can cause some off the wall shit.
@HeatherRadish™ (Re: Insurance vs. Care) A-Freaken-Men. I blame the unfettered expansion of insurance to cover things far outside of it's original intent. Ace is sitting on an essay from me about the end result of this where all care is "basic" and legally mandated to be covered by insurance. Whether we like it or not a 2-tiered system is inevitable if we don't want this system to collapse. But hey, it works for housing, food, clothing, pretty much anything else where there's "Survivable" and "enjoyable" as categories.
Posted by: tsrblke at March 28, 2012 05:16 AM (SYrwI)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 28, 2012 09:05 AM (Ho2rs)
It sounded like a panic attack possibly exacerbated by an existing but undiagnosed psychiatric condition. My question is what the hell prompted it? Possibly a mini-stroke? Those are all kinds of bad news.
Viewed in tandem with the stewardess freakout the other week, though, makes me wonder if airline personnel received some kind of private briefing from someone in the gubmint about potential terrorist activity that's put them all on edge.
Or maybe there's just something in the air.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at March 28, 2012 05:16 AM (4df7R)
A nervous break-down is one thing, but a near-psychotic break with paranoid delusions?
Also known here at Circa International as "Wednesday."
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 28, 2012 05:17 AM (B+qrE)
Went from $3.75 to $4.16 west of Indianapolis.
That's kind of how it works around here; 30-cent increase, then it dribbles back a dime or so over the next week, then another 25-cent increase, rinse, repeat.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 28, 2012 05:17 AM (ZKzrr)
Wonder how that's working out for him?
Heh.
Posted by: Hayabusa at March 28, 2012 08:55 AM (wG0z7)
Ah ok, I knew Roberts was ticked...didn't know Kennedy took offense as well.
Thanks
Posted by: kawfytawk at March 28, 2012 05:18 AM (VIm97)
Also known here at Circa International as "Wednesday."
Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 28, 2012 09:17 AM (B+qrE)
----
Thats going on FB today.
Posted by: Jimmah at March 28, 2012 05:18 AM (UpwlP)
Or maybe there's just something in the air.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at March 28, 2012 09:16 AM (4df7R)
Unlikely, thousands of airline employees someone would have broke rank. They're calling upon some pretty common memes as fair as "air travel fear" goes.
Heck the "Bomb on the [Vehicle]" fear goes back even farther!
Posted by: tsrblke at March 28, 2012 05:20 AM (SYrwI)
I can't see that acronym anymore without thinking about Star Trek IV (Whale Wars edition).
"Don't mind him, he did a little too much LDS in the 60's."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 05:21 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: NO_LIMIT_NINJA at March 28, 2012 05:21 AM (8/nTx)
That's kind of how it works around here; 30-cent increase, then it dribbles back a dime or so over the next week, then another 25-cent increase, rinse, repeat.
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 28, 2012 09:17 AM (ZKzrr)
It's $4.88 at a station on the corner of North and LaSalle in Shitcago. But it's not repeat not Barry's fault. Hell, it could be $18 a gallon and Cook County would still vote 80% for Barry
Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 28, 2012 05:22 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at March 28, 2012 05:23 AM (gPDxp)
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/03/27/ seen-at-the-supreme-court-breitbart/
(remove space after the numbers)
Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at March 28, 2012 05:25 AM (ZKzrr)
Scalia and Kennedy already are in their late-70's. Of course Ginsburg could go at any moment. Breyer's no spring chicken.
If Obama is not unseated it's conceivable that he'll leave office with a 6-3 absolute majority on the SCOTUS that'll be young enough to serve together for two decades.
Keep that in mind when you're deciding how best to "send your messages" or to "prove your points."
Posted by: Tsar Nicholas II at March 28, 2012 09:15 AM (r2PLg)
And how is Romney's record on conservative appointments look? Eh? Not so fucking good I would bet. I feel sooooo much better with his RINO ass making Supreme Court appointments. Don't you?
Posted by: maddogg at March 28, 2012 05:25 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 05:25 AM (8y9MW)
Reminds me of the story about Ronald Reagan, who spent Christmases in Washington instead of California, so his Secret Service detail could be with their families. What a contrast.
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at March 28, 2012 05:25 AM (i0App)
Booyah! I couldn't have done it without all of my peeps, y'all.
Posted by: Spike Lee One-Too-Many-Joints at March 28, 2012 05:26 AM (/ZZCn)
Posted by: maddogg at March 28, 2012 09:25 AM (OlN4e)
Oddly enough, yes.
Posted by: Teh Mayan Calendar at March 28, 2012 05:27 AM (udEUT)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at March 28, 2012 09:23 AM (gPDxp)
Buy futures before it goes up again. Be an evil speculator.
Posted by: schizoid at March 28, 2012 05:28 AM (sxkY6)
My memory of the events leading to the passage of
StutteringClusterfuckCare reminds me that the final days were a kind of
stare-down contest between Hairy Reid and Bitch McConnell. Bitch
blinked, and stood aside to allow the final vote because he wanted to
get home for Christmas.
--------------
I seem to remember that it couldn't be a tax increase because that would have required a supermajority in the house at least. So it wasn't a tax increase, or it would have never been sent to the senate. Now all of a sudden its a tax increase.
Posted by: Jimmah at March 28, 2012 05:29 AM (UpwlP)
Posted by: BeckoningChasm at March 28, 2012 09:25 AM (i0App)
I believe W did this too. Obama drags them half way around the world to Hawaii. He's a giver that O.
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 28, 2012 05:30 AM (3jGS1)
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 28, 2012 09:30 AM (3jGS1)
We've had other presidents nearly as evil as Obama (LBJ, FDR), but none as classless, exploitive, and self-obsessed.
Posted by: Reactionary at March 28, 2012 05:34 AM (xUM1Q)
Hmm, Megamillions now at nearly half a billion dollars. So are we starting a Moron ticket pool? Go ahead send me your money, I promise to keep my personal tickets out of the pool!
(Anyone else wondering if Obummer is spending tax dollars on tickets? It's a better investment than Solyndra et al)
Posted by: tsrblke at March 28, 2012 05:36 AM (SYrwI)
"There are three basic questions that the Supreme Court is trying to decide.
1. Should they decide now, or wait? (That was argued on Monday.)
2. If they decide now, then is the individual mandate unconstitutional? (Today.)
3. If the mandate is unconstitutional, then is it severable from the
rest of the law? In other words, if SCOTUS strikes down the individual
mandate, does that invalidate the rest of the law? (Tomorrow.)
For Obama, the ideal outcome is 1. Now. 2. Unconstitutional. 3. ItÂ’s severable.
"ThatÂ’s why the arguments yesterday and today were feeble: Obama wants to lose the first and second questions. TomorrowÂ’s argument is about severability, and thatÂ’s the one to watch."
http://tinyurl.com/cgstn4q
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 28, 2012 05:36 AM (3jGS1)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 28, 2012 05:37 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain at March 28, 2012 05:37 AM (bj+Nc)
Posted by: NO_LIMIT_NINJA at March 28, 2012 05:37 AM (8/nTx)
W has class. Not viable currency in Washington anymore.
Whutduamean? renoB has had several very classy squalling sessions so far.
Posted by: maddogg at March 28, 2012 05:40 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 28, 2012 05:41 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: Hedgehog at March 28, 2012 09:36 AM (3jGS1)
The Court's all over the place, any chance they could sever just the parts related to the individual mandate (The pre-existing conditons clause and the community rating?) The legislative intent is all over the fact that their connected.
In any case, a HUGE HUGE thanks to whoever removed the severability clause in congress/senate. That may be the one smart thing about this law, someone had enough sense to realize it's not some "pick and choose the best bread and circuses" part.
Posted by: tsrblke at March 28, 2012 05:42 AM (SYrwI)
Posted by: Amish Buggy Bill at March 28, 2012 05:43 AM (BHM5V)
This is pure insanity. THe SCOTUS has no clue what the effects of an implementation of ObamaCare is going to be and yet, they are seriously considering listening to some lying sack of shit blow more smoke up their asses about letting the monstrosity continue on after having taken a major piece of it out? WTFFFF is wrong with these people? Code is assumed to all be dependent, unless built with the proviso that some subroutine can actually be taken out and the rest is left intact.
1/6 of the American economy and totally against the American Constitution ... and the SCOTUS is still holding hearings on severability over something that is OBVIOUSLY non-severable.
This is why I have no respect for lawyers whatsoever. They are idiots. This is insane.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 05:46 AM (X3lox)
An absolute concern, shared by all. Everyone wants to be fairly represented in the US Judicial Courts. And this administration will persistently emphasize "social justice" denying constitutional rights equally for all American citizens (even while awarding those rights to illegal aliens, and enhancing those rights to be monopolized evidently --given multiple Obama precedences-- by African-Americans).
Given the economic ruin of America, racist revolutions at home and abroad will nail our coffin shut and bury us deep. American citizens and humanity at large need the "natural rights" of equality, at least each person being equal under the law, "with Liberty and [blind] Justice for all."
Realistic expectation? Romney won't be any "better" than Reagan on SCOTUS nominees. For each Scalia appointment, there was Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy; 1:3 does not meet with "trust but verify".
Posted by: panzernashorn at March 28, 2012 05:46 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: Jimmah at March 28, 2012 05:50 AM (UpwlP)
Obama is a liar and a communist. He's no better than Kim Jung Il. He'd have us groveling if he thought that it was fair. and he does.
Posted by: rectal exam at March 28, 2012 05:50 AM (O7ksG)
That's all i remember. Weird isn't it!
Perhaps i need to take a break from politics.
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 05:50 AM (TomZ9)
He started attending Tea Party ralllies because of this and the debt issue. As he spoke up more and more at these rallies, it became apparent that this was a man of conviction and *gasp* common sense. People started urging him - a political nobody - to run for Senate. He had never run for office before. He ended up defeating one of the Liberal icons of the Senate - Russ Feingold.
Do not tell me that an ordinary citizen with a brain and a heart cannot do bold things.
Posted by: mama winger at March 28, 2012 05:50 AM (P6QsQ)
Posted by: mike at March 28, 2012 05:50 AM (RIT3J)
After making the rounds on the morning show circuit, George Zimmerman's lawyer, Craig Sonner, was supposed to appear on Lawrence O'Donnell's primetime show on Monday night. But according to MSNBC, Sonner walked out of a remote Orlando studio shortly before the segment, leaving O'Donnell in the lurch.
After a rant about the cancellation ("He wasn't going to get out of here with an easy interview!") O'Donnell went ahead with his list of interview questions for Sonner anyway.
"Who is paying you?" a heated O'Donnell asked the empty chair. "Did you represent [Zimmerman] when he was arrested for assault on a police officer in 2005? Were you his lawyer then? Did you represent him in the domestic violence case in 2007?"
I'm guessing that all 3 of his viewers found that hysterical.
Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 28, 2012 05:51 AM (1Jaio)
Posted by: mike at March 28, 2012 05:52 AM (RIT3J)
Posted by: mike at March 28, 2012 05:53 AM (RIT3J)
Yeah... I wouldn't say "uncertainty" is why I'm concerned about ObamaCare. I'm concerned about ObamaCare because I'm quite certain that it's a terrible law that changes my status from that of "citizen" to "subject."
And I'm not okay with that.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 05:54 AM (8y9MW)
How much do they fly? Could be effects of sleep deprivation and drugs to counteract them.
Posted by: Heorot at March 28, 2012 05:54 AM (Nq/UF)
So the poor elderly couple whose home was misidentified as the home of George Zimmerman, and whose address was tweeted by Spike Lee (to his 250,000 followers) and many others, have been forced to move into a hotel for the time being thanks to the harassment they've been receiving.
Link to FoxNews: http://tinyurl.com/cszgu9p
Way to go Lefties!
This is the part of the story that makes me PARTICULARLY FURIOUS, btw:
The confusion seems to stem from the fact the woman's son is named William George Zimmerman and he lived briefly at the address in 1995 [after graduating from college].
When William Zimmerman pleaded with the man who tweeted the address, the man responded, "Black power all day. No justice, no peace" along with an obscenity.
In other words, "Fuck you. I didn't make a dangerous and possibly lethal mistake by doing something that I had no right to do in the first place. Fuck whitey."
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at March 28, 2012 06:03 AM (4df7R)
Lording over an empty chair yelling at his imaginary object?
Stone read his "public" speech in a van, FBI bugged, incarcerated without bond 2 years...
Posted by: panzernashorn at March 28, 2012 06:04 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 06:06 AM (8y9MW)
If I were on the jury, I would award that couple every single penny that Spike Lee has ever made or ever will make. That miserable little piece of shit (who sucks as a director, anyway) needs to be held liable for his actions. Jail would be a nice little vacation for the race-obsessed retard.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 06:06 AM (X3lox)
union restrictions on working pilot hours -- doesn't determine whether he's been missing sleep though, distraught over something in life.
You noted as well the likely reaction to a drug being a possible factor.
Posted by: panzernashorn at March 28, 2012 06:09 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: I am the egg man, . . . at March 28, 2012 06:11 AM (a362c)
Posted by: NO_LIMIT_NINJA at March 28, 2012 06:11 AM (Xq/IG)
Hiding behind Federal Hate Crime, leaving it to the discretion of Holder/Obama to protect Americans equally?
Posted by: panzernashorn at March 28, 2012 06:12 AM (lpWVn)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 28, 2012 06:13 AM (Ho2rs)
Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 28, 2012 10:13 AM (Ho2rs)
I don't want to hear Barky say anything. He's a pathological liar, anyway, so his words are totally meaningless. I want both Barky and his son, Spike, held to task for the America-hating pieces of shit that they both are.
No more words. Orange. jumpsuits.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 06:15 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 10:06 AM (8y9MW)
I was yesterday, but last night I managed to unintentionally fall asleep at 7pm and slept right through till 1am. I usually don't even go to bed until 1am. All I could do was get up, get ready for bed, and go back to sleep till my alarm went off at six.
That's just physical tiredness, though. The mental exhaustion of trying to survive in a world plagued with leftist imbeciles and an idiot in the Oval Office is neverending.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at March 28, 2012 06:15 AM (4df7R)
In one of the 3rd re-boot series IIRC G wades ashore, pulls the pressure vessel right out of the containment. Sucks all the radioactivity out and goes looking for another.
So he's a really bad emergency plan.
Posted by: DaveA at March 28, 2012 06:18 AM (lnh+c)
Posted by: china at March 28, 2012 06:19 AM (Ho2rs)
I definitely think the couple should sue the original Tweeter -- some random thirtysomething dickhead in fucking Cali -- AND Spike Lee. The original Tweeter should be sued for starting the problem, and Spike Lee for using his sizable Twitter following to further the lie.
It should be noted that other black celebrities -- including Will Smith -- were also sent the erroneous address via Twitter, but I haven't heard that any of them actually re-tweeted it. I doubt my politics mesh with theirs, but kudos to them for not falling headfirst into the hellhole of lynch mob mentality.
Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO supporter at March 28, 2012 06:19 AM (4df7R)
i cannot imagine those that have always paid attention to politics , how they find the zen zone.
ooohm.
ooohm.
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 06:20 AM (TomZ9)
They don't. At some point, though, your body over-rides your mind and forces you to sleep.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 28, 2012 06:21 AM (8y9MW)
i cannot imagine those that have always paid attention to politics , how they find the zen zone.
ooohm.
ooohm.
**
A man-sized dinner with manly food and two Advil PM's at bedtime works wonders. Somehow I don't think my Dr. would approve though.
**
ooohm...ooohm....
Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2012 06:25 AM (8ieXv)
Imagine the President not coming out to calm things down, but piling on. and his DOJ yawning though it all.
imagine a man that caused the crown heights riots and deaths or innocent people now having a mic anytime he wants through a news channel. and uses it to agitate!
and hollywood , sports players all being on board with a black KKK putting a bounty on another americans head without allowing due process of the law to finish it's investigations, having the media approve it all while using its forum to get others on board .
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 06:26 AM (TomZ9)
The REAL issue, and one that no one seems to talk about, is the idea that the Supremes CAN and Will override the clear intent of the Constitution if the issue is 'justified'.
Which means they can rewrite the meaning of the Constitution, WITHOUT Amending it... And everyone seems to be OK with that?
IMO this case is the most important the Supremes have heard... because if the allow Obamacare to change the fundamental balance between the People and Governemtn (their words), without Amending the Constitution first???? The Republic is over.
Posted by: Romeo13 at March 28, 2012 06:27 AM (lZBBB)
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 06:27 AM (TomZ9)
**
ooohm...ooohm....
Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2012 10:25 AM (8ieXv)
mm hm. I do NyQuil, but it doesn't really work for more than a couple of hours sleep. i had thought of a wellplaced board on head to knock me out.
Posted by: willow at March 28, 2012 06:30 AM (TomZ9)
pilot goes off : of course, it could be a case of not wearing protective equipment, while mixing the juice/contrails no?
*ducks and runs*
Posted by: pitchforksandpowder at March 28, 2012 06:31 AM (6M2rK)
No, it isn't. It is goods and services like anything else found in a market. No amount of emotion can change that reality. Trying to do so is the primary cause of high medical costs.
Posted by: epobirs at March 28, 2012 06:33 AM (kcfmt)
Posted by: Optimizer at March 28, 2012 06:36 AM (As94z)
Posted by: A Melteddown Webworker at March 28, 2012 06:39 AM (lBpVP)
Posted by: A Mindful Webworker at March 28, 2012 06:39 AM (lBpVP)
Posted by: rockmom at March 28, 2012 06:41 AM (qE3AR)
Posted by: McLovin at March 28, 2012 08:13 AM (j0IcY)
Just don't break one of those $50 light bulbs. You'll have to call out a hazmat team.
Posted by: Insomniac at March 28, 2012 06:41 AM (v+QvA)
White House forced to issue a statement backing Verilli after his abysmal performance yesterday, per Politico:
The White House is coming to the defense of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., whose performance before the Supreme Court Tuesday has been widely panned. "Mr. Verrilli is an extraordinarily talented advocate who possesses a sharp mind, keen judgment and unquestionable integrity," White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler said Wednesday morning. "He ably and skillfully represented the United States before the Supreme Court yesterday, and we have every confidence that he will continue to do so."
Posted by: rockmom at March 28, 2012 06:42 AM (qE3AR)
Yeah, I heard some reports of that absurd spin.
If the SCOTUS rules this unconstitutional it will be a huge albatross around Obama's neck. Or, to put it another cruder but perhaps more appropriate way, it's a big fucking deal.
Obama was touted as a Constitutional scholar. Now he is going to have a major decision on Constitutional qualification find him in the wrong, on top of his classes having consisted of having the books of a renown lunatic forced upon the students. Ultimately, this man wasted a huge amount of our time and money on nonsense that should never have gotten past a late night bull session in a law school dorm room.
The real question is if the GOP or anyone running is smart enough to get the full advantage of it.
Posted by: epobirs at March 28, 2012 06:44 AM (kcfmt)
Vermin performed at the same level Barky always performs - telling stupid, blatant lies that are intellectually offensive in that only an idiot would believe any of it. All of Barky's admin do this for pretty much everything.
Vermin gave a solid B+ performance for this treasonous administration of retards.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 06:45 AM (X3lox)
They should just come out and say, "We asked the poor bastard to defend the indefensible."
It got to the point where Ruth Bader Ginsburg was trying to feed him arguments, even though her arguments were tendentious class warfare nonsense.
Posted by: epobirs at March 28, 2012 06:47 AM (kcfmt)
Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2012 06:51 AM (8ieXv)
http://is.gd/q51Puh
Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2012 06:58 AM (YdQQY)
Magic Johnson group to buy Dodgers for record $2B
It's just a matter of 3 zeroes
Posted by: Dickus Maximus at March 28, 2012 06:53 AM (e8kgV)
By next week, they will be showing pictures of 8 year old Martin holding a fluffy bunny.
Posted by: toby928© at March 28, 2012 06:53 AM (GTbGH)
By next week, they will be showing pictures of 8 year old Martin holding a fluffy bunny.
Posted by: toby928© at March 28, 2012 10:53 AM (GTbGH)
*
And Zimmerman kitteh-juggling.
Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2012 06:56 AM (8ieXv)
I hear the spin that an Obamacare repeal would be good for Dems / good for Obama, but I fail to ever hear the rationale.
The best I can think of on my own is that it will give Obama something to run on as the victim. OH, I TRIED TO HELP YOU, BUT THE MEANIE-MEAN REPUBLICAN blah blah blah... But this doesn't seem like it does much for independents. Obamacare is unpopular. And I would hazard a guess that running against The Supreme Court in an election, though unprecedented(!), is also unpopular. Even before someone points out that 22% of that Supreme Court was filled by Obama himself.
So what's the rationale?
Posted by: reason at March 28, 2012 07:00 AM (kZVsz)
The police made Jodi Ferris get up out of her hospital bed and escorted her to the entrance—they were expelling her from the hospital because she had not signed the “safety plan.”
Scott met her at the entrance to the hospital. The police escorted them both off of the grounds of the hospital.
Jodi was told that she would be allowed to return every three hours to nurse the baby through the night.
Jodi and Scott were forced to spend the night that she had given birth in their car in the parking lot of a nearby Wal-Mart. You read that right. They kicked this mother out of the hospital, and in order to be close enough to feed her child, she had to sleep in the car.
Posted by: Janet Nippleton at March 28, 2012 07:01 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: toby928© at March 28, 2012 10:53 AM (GTbGH)
*
And Zimmerman kitteh-juggling. While Gloria Allred holds a press conference with an alleged former Zimmermistress.
Posted by: reason at March 28, 2012 07:02 AM (kZVsz)
Posted by: dananjcon at March 28, 2012 10:56 AM (8ieXv)
FTFY
Posted by: Insomniac at March 28, 2012 07:03 AM (v+QvA)
Posted by: artemis at March 28, 2012 07:05 AM (2XMD1)
(EOJ)
Do you have a link for that? Not doubting it - would like as source for a post at my blog.
TIA!
Posted by: speedster1 at March 28, 2012 07:07 AM (yeM7r)
Technically, the baby didn't sign the "safety form" either...
Posted by: reason at March 28, 2012 07:07 AM (kZVsz)
The repeating theme I've heard is that ObamaCare is really PelosiCare and shouldn't be hung around Obama's neck, even though he campaigned on it.
Further, the delusion says everything else about Zero is so wonderfull that with ObamaCare out of the way his re-election can be focused on his other 'accomplishments.'
OK. We can do that. Solyndra, Solyndra, Solyndra. For starters.
Posted by: epobirs at March 28, 2012 07:08 AM (kcfmt)
Posted by: yankeefifth at March 28, 2012 07:10 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: yankeefifth at March 28, 2012 07:14 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: Bill Cosby at March 28, 2012 07:18 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: yankeefifth at March 28, 2012 07:19 AM (Z9EHQ)
@305
Well they removed the severability clause as I read the news reports, that's legislative intent (rather than an accident). So it's bigger than that. Like I said earlier, whoever removed it is a freaken genius, it ensured the law either stayed up or went down, not letting the SCOUTS scrap the unpopular parts and leave the unsustatinable bread and circuces in place.
Posted by: tsrblke at March 28, 2012 07:20 AM (SYrwI)
Severability is missing because the final legislation was the intermediate Senate Bill (that was NEVER meant to be the basis for any final law but was only to get through one more Senate vote before the Scott Brown election killed the Senate moving any further) that was rushed in after the Scott Brown election - when everyone with a brain assumed that the monstrosity was finally dead (every Rahmbo thought it was finally over). Remember all the insanity with DemonPass and the dems not wanting to vote on the language in the Senate bill.
This bill was a factory second - never meant for production - that was rushed off the line and sold to the public as the final product.
This was a disaster from start to end and should be thrown out based on that, alone (if America still had any sense left, at all). The SCOTUS is making a bad joke out of the greatest assault on liberty (and the US Constitution) in modern history.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 07:23 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: yankeefifth at March 28, 2012 07:25 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: yankeefifth at March 28, 2012 07:27 AM (Z9EHQ)
Well "deliberate" may have been too strong. Someone may have been trying something else and failed. In either case it's a boon for us.
That being said, we've always heard "the mandate is essential to the bill" which implies a certain intent behind the severability being left out. If the SCOTUS runs with that....
Posted by: tsrblke at March 28, 2012 07:28 AM (SYrwI)
Posted by: And Irresolute at March 28, 2012 07:29 AM (RC3M9)
They found that cotton bags may cause more global warming, as a greater amount of energy goes into making a cloth carrier than a polythene one.
And that a cotton bag has to be used 131 times before it has the same environmental impact like its plastic counterpart.
And if a plastic bag is re-used as a bin liner, a cotton bag has to be used 173 times - nearly every day of the year - before its ecological impact is as low as a plastic bag on a host of factors including greenhouse gas emissions over its lifetime.
But researchers found that most of us only use the bags around 51 times before they are thrown away.
Posted by: Andrew Wyeth at March 28, 2012 07:32 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: Stephen Foster at March 28, 2012 07:39 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: yankeefifth at March 28, 2012 07:39 AM (Z9EHQ)
@314
It's "conspicious conservation" see: Freakonomics Podcast "Is that a prius you're driving?"
The only reason my wife and I started using cotton bags was because we got tired of having the plastic ones around the house. And tired of having to take the garbage out right after a grocery trip (laziness!)
But we just found some cotton bags we had gotten at conventions and such and used those, plus their bigger than the average plastic grocery bag with better handles so we get our groceries in in one trip from the car (helpful in an apartment complex.) I could give a rats arse about the environmental effect of them. (Some grocery stores give some nominal amount off for every reusable bag your bring in, that's also nice).
That being said, we forget our cotton bags more often than not, but we don't fret about it.
Posted by: tsrblke at March 28, 2012 07:40 AM (SYrwI)
Posted by: tsrblke at March 28, 2012 11:28 AM (SYrwI)
Any 2000+ page law should have ALL of its components PRESUMED to be non-severable unless explicitly stated. This is like someone looking at 300 pages of computer code and deciding to take some routine out that performs important back-end work and thinking that the rest of the program is probably fine without it.
It boggles the mind, really. Our SCOTUS sucks donkey dick ... sloppily.
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 07:41 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: yankeefifth at March 28, 2012 07:42 AM (Z9EHQ)
VERRILLI: For burial services?
JUSTICE ALITO: Yes.
VERRILLI: Yes, Justice Alito, I think there is.
JUSTICE ALITO: All right, suppose that you and I walked around downtown Washington at lunch hour and we found a couple of healthy young people and we stopped them and we said, “You know what you’re doing? You are financing your burial services right now because eventually you’re going to die, and somebody is going to have to pay for it, and if you don’t have burial insurance and you haven’t saved money for it, you’re going to shift the cost to somebody else.”
IsnÂ’t that a very artificial way of talking about what somebody is doing?
Posted by: Tara Lipinski at March 28, 2012 07:44 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: yankeefifth at March 28, 2012 07:46 AM (Z9EHQ)
@318
I don't disagree, although Laws are more like a lego set than a computer program. Several moving, non-interrelated parts. You could decide to not build the castle and the rest of the set works just fine.
In either case, I was merely trying to point out that the Gov'ment is trying to have it both ways here. "You can't strike this down, it's necessary!" unless they're losing in which case "Keep the law and just slice out the unconstitutional parts." Bullcrap, they need to stick by what they started with.
Posted by: tsrblke at March 28, 2012 07:47 AM (SYrwI)
So I think today has the chance to be a very big day potentially. I'm very interested to see if the Court actually believed itself when it wrote in Dole v. South Dakota that when the Federal Govt. withholds state funds with the idea to force a state to do something, at some point if that number becomes so large it violates the 10th Ammendment. "Coercive" was the word they used.
Now, they've never actually found a case where the Federal Govt. threatening to withhold state funding reached that "coercive level" (see the Dole decision, where the Govt. withheld 5% of the Federal funds in order to force South Dakota to increase it's drinking age was not so large as to be coercive), but if they actually do believe that level exists, then this it, because there is no larger state funding program than medicaid funding.
Posted by: Rich at March 28, 2012 07:50 AM (ldOlo)
One of the candidates is Ronald Weich, an assistant attorney general at the U.S. Department of Justice, the highest ranking office holder in the DOJ with knowledge of "Fast and Furious"
Posted by: George C. Marshall at March 28, 2012 07:50 AM (e8kgV)
“Racial profiling has to stop,” Rush said. “Just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum.” Rush also put on sunglasses. Rush quoted the Bible while presiding officer Gregg Harper (R-Miss.) repeatedly interrupted him, then asked the Sergeant at Arms to enforce the House prohibition on hats in the chamber.
“The chair must remind members that clause 5 of rule 17 prohibits the wearing of hats in the chamber when the House is in session,” Harper said after Rush left.
“The chair finds that the donning of a hood is not consistent with this rule. Members need to remove their hoods or leave the floor.”
Posted by: W. C. Fields at March 28, 2012 07:53 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: yankeefifth at March 28, 2012 07:55 AM (Z9EHQ)
The court has no way of knowing this, in general, and the idea that the court could even reach any reasonable conclusion on this stretches credulity. In this particular case, the SCOTUS has not a clue what the actual legislation will do (other than bankrupt us as every single other attempt at socializing and centralizing health care (via insurance for the America-haters in the Barky admin) has done) let alone what the effects will be with one of the major legs taken out of it. Just to claim that they would consider severability is offensive.
In either case, I was merely trying to point out that the Gov'ment is trying to have it both ways here. "You can't strike this down, it's necessary!" unless they're losing in which case "Keep the law and just slice out the unconstitutional parts." Bullcrap, they need to stick by what they started with.
Posted by: tsrblke at March 28, 2012 11:47 AM (SYrwI)
I agree. But the SCOTUS (and everyone) has been letting Barky and his junta get away with making contradictory claims again and again. The Vermin did it more than a few times in his oral arguments (for which he should have been held in contempt).
Law is more dynamic and unpredictable than computer code so the concept of severability should be much much stricter with laws, especially when it's a law that is about to pervert 1/6th of the American economy. I am beyond offended that the SCOTUS would not only contemplate adding severability on their own but that they are so stupid and assholish as to declare that law without severability clauses does not even move one to the presumption of non-severability.
What passes for thinking and logic in law is ... INSANE!!
Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 28, 2012 07:56 AM (X3lox)
Posted by: toby928© at March 28, 2012 07:56 AM (GTbGH)
Posted by: yankeefifth at March 28, 2012 07:56 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: yankeefifth at March 28, 2012 08:03 AM (Z9EHQ)
Posted by: JewishOdysseus at March 28, 2012 08:04 AM (l23WN)
Posted by: yankeefifth at March 28, 2012 08:12 AM (Z9EHQ)
I know nothing should surprise me anymore, but her crassness seems to know no bounds, no respect for the White House at all.
Posted by: Mayday at March 28, 2012 08:44 AM (orrLR)
Supreme's decisions:
1) It is not a tax 8-1 (Breyer)
2) The mandate is unconstitutional (7-2) (Kagan, Breyer)
3) The mandate is unconstutional no matter if a state does it as well, Mr. Romneycare, an up yours concurrence (Thomas, Roberts)
4) Mandate is severable (7-2) (Thomas, Roberts)
5) Violates state's rights, medicaid (5-4) (Kennedy, Breyer, Kagan, Ginsburg.....Sotomayer is swing vote with cons)
Posted by: doug at March 28, 2012 08:48 AM (gUGI6)
Once upon a time that wasn't the case.
Most of Apple's success relies upon a vast user base that became such by using a PC. And an environment built, developed and made usable by the ubiquitous PC.
Apple's succeeding now but the PC (and Microsoft) made it possible.
Posted by: Inspired by disgust at March 28, 2012 08:58 AM (CP+yl)
Posted by: steevy at March 28, 2012 10:24 AM (7W3wI)
India on March 28, from Poole's
success chang (Chandipur) test test
of "blah moss" Seattle cruise
missiles, it is by the army of the
user part of the experiment.
Missiles with a range of 290 km, can
carry 200-300 kilograms of
conventional warheads, from mobile
launching ground launch device. This
type of "blah moss" missile is army
type missile face to face, two level
structure, the first level for solid
fuel, the second the use of liquid
propellant stamping jet engine. The
empty shoot model and submarine-
based models in the works.
Indian defense ministry has approved
the army to three group equipment
missile system plan. Now the "blah
moss" has been equipped with two
army regiment.
Posted by: freeoa at March 29, 2012 06:23 PM (WII+L)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2545 seconds, 463 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








Posted by: Vic at March 28, 2012 02:57 AM (YdQQY)