June 29, 2012
— Gabriel Malor Friday!
Enjoy your weekend.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
02:50 AM
| Comments (142)
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Golan Globus at June 29, 2012 02:54 AM (HR5x9)
Oh, and "morning." I won't insult you by calling it "good."
Posted by: joncelli at June 29, 2012 02:56 AM (Rioqw)
If there is anybody who sounds more toked up while performing than Tom Petty I am not aware of him.
Posted by: Typo dynamofo at June 29, 2012 02:56 AM (FU9ql)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 29, 2012 02:56 AM (ZHrEM)
Posted by: Avi at June 29, 2012 02:59 AM (51xVX)
****
He had some AWESOME vids back in the day.
And... good morning, all.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 29, 2012 03:01 AM (piMMO)
Roberts has not been clever here.
He quailed before Dem thuggery, plain and simple, and has defined as a tax something clearly not written or structured as a tax. And he's made this 'taxing' power as unlimited as the supposedly now curbed commerce power.
We can probably spin the tax angle politically, but nothing can hide the fact that this decision is an outright disgrace and a betrayal and that it portends cowardice from Roberts across the spectrum.
Four blatant Dem operatives on the Court and Roberts worries about politization toward the right. Idiot.
Posted by: njinfl at June 29, 2012 03:04 AM (SKSDk)
Five more states have been granted relief from key requirements of the Bush-era No Child Left Behind law, bringing the total to 24 states given waivers, an Obama administration official said Friday.
Another 13 are still under review.
Well, at least Democrats are consistent with dealing with the laws those silly Republicans presume to pass.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 29, 2012 03:04 AM (kdS6q)
For those of you who missed Nancy Pelosi's speech yesterday, well, take a look.
She was drunk! I'm not kidding. She was slurring her speech and losing her place and rambling like crazy... AND screwed up Brian Terry's name.
She no doubt had a few too many champagne toasts over the SCOTUS decision.
Drunk? You decide:
You have to watch, at least, the first minute.
It's incredible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml6SGY95m_w
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 29, 2012 03:05 AM (piMMO)
I guess I'll have to make more frozen margaritas!
What are the "little people" going to do?
Posted by: Billy Bob, the 1% at June 29, 2012 03:06 AM (KZI7g)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 29, 2012 03:06 AM (aGX9l)
Speaking of Nancy:
Pelosi was wearing her lucky purple pumps yesterday. Pelosi wore these shoes the day health care passed (March 21, 2010).
Let the image of Pelosi in her lavender "Do Me" pumps haunt you for the rest of the day.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 29, 2012 03:08 AM (kdS6q)
We will never have the numbers to repeal it.
The law give tremendous authority to the executive branch in administration, interpretation and implementation.
We have seen Obama wielding his unitary executive like a king.
Romney can kill it by not implementing any part of it when he becomes President.
Posted by: General Woundwort at June 29, 2012 03:09 AM (06lNq)
Posted by: teej at June 29, 2012 03:10 AM (WY3bD)
Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at June 29, 2012 03:10 AM (UTq/I)
BFD t-shirt for sale on their website. Here's a safe pic: http://flic.kr/p/cnBDuU
And promptly followed that up with an email:
It's been a good day.
But this is a three-step process.
1. Pass historic health care reform. Check.
2. Get affirmation from the highest court in the country. Check.
Step three? Win the damn election. (emphasis mine)
Unprecedented!
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 29, 2012 03:12 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Serious Cat at June 29, 2012 03:13 AM (zrpqj)
Posted by: jjmurphy at June 29, 2012 03:13 AM (GFXcA)
This waiver would only terminate if the individual or company wishes it.
Of course a new administration could lift the waiver but if the law has not been implemented in say 8 years of a Romney administration it would have been killed in effect anyway.
Posted by: General Woundwort at June 29, 2012 03:17 AM (06lNq)
Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at June 29, 2012 03:18 AM (aGX9l)
The Three Ages of Man, According to Obama. -- At the beginning, a "mistake." At the end, an encumbrance. In between, a slave.
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 29, 2012 03:19 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Anna Puma at June 29, 2012 03:19 AM (ZHrEM)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2012 03:19 AM (JDIKC)
Posted by: Serious Cat at June 29, 2012 03:19 AM (zrpqj)
Posted by: toby928© at June 29, 2012 03:19 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: In before the Troll who's in before the Troll at June 29, 2012 03:20 AM (7+pP9)
Posted by: lowandslow at June 29, 2012 03:20 AM (GZitp)
Posted by: Scobface at June 29, 2012 03:20 AM (IoNBC)
Posted by: Serious Cat at June 29, 2012 03:21 AM (zrpqj)
Posted by: jjmurphy at June 29, 2012 03:21 AM (GFXcA)
Free Ballling (an ode to loose shorts) vs.
THE hardest working man in show business
"Don't lighten up, Tighten up"
Posted by: DaveA at June 29, 2012 03:22 AM (EyTMo)
Posted by: Mr Pink at June 29, 2012 03:24 AM (GZhKn)
Posted by: IdowhatIwant at June 29, 2012 03:25 AM (a4CUi)
Well, what else have we got to hold on to?
The GOP will never have sufficient numbers to repeal the law.
The GOP Governors could go into open revolt, but then the federal government will start penalizing them by taking away funding for these states.
As we have seen time and again, the GOP will not fight for us when it truly counts.
This law was passed, ILLEGALLY!
It was ruled constitutional on ILLEGITIMATE and SPURIOUS grounds.
The GOP will not and cannot save us.
Only Romney can.
Vote early, vote often, Vote as if your very life depends on it.
Posted by: General Woundwort at June 29, 2012 03:26 AM (06lNq)
Makes Perfect Sense<<< I'm told you have to be a lawyer to understand how upholding it was brilliant multi-dimensional chess. Apparently, it would have been impossible to repeal AND cap the Commerce Clause's reach at the same time. I will always lament that my layman's brain is to feeble to appreciate the magnificent intricacy of Roberts' decision: upholding freedom by ignoring plain text and joining the liberals in passing the largest tax increase in world history.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2012 03:28 AM (JDIKC)
1-New OSHA powers that fine employers by violation per day per man.
Minimum fine of $1000? 3 men on the job for 5 days is a minimum of $15,000.
2 men is $10,000. How much is that 3rd guy worth. Keep in mind that we are talking about new rules and powers that are not well advertised and regulate outlaw what has been standard practice.
2- EPA rules and regulations requiring new certifications and licenses for home remodelers who work on pre 1979 homes. Same fine rules as OSHA. $1000 per violation per man per day. Poorly advertised change in standard practice.
3- Healthcare.
4- Workman's Comp rule that causes the employer to enrolled when he hires the first employee, thus doubling his initial outlay.
But I'm sure we'll have a boom economy any minute now.
Posted by: Typo dynamofo at June 29, 2012 03:28 AM (FU9ql)
Posted by: Hrothgar at June 29, 2012 03:29 AM (i3+c5)
Posted by: conservative mom in md at June 29, 2012 03:29 AM (4fepB)
Posted by: Serious Cat at June 29, 2012 03:30 AM (zrpqj)
Posted by: Mr Pink at June 29, 2012 03:30 AM (GZhKn)
I am curious to the see the business ramifications over the next few weeks.
Posted by: jjmurphy
Have some inside info for the discussions at one company.
Blue state firm has over 5000 employees, Currently offers subsidized insurance plans that cost the business $4000 or so in their share of the expenses. Plans are lightly subscribed because most workers are low wage and deterred by the relatively high employee contributions.
Company is looking seriously at dropping all insurance and just paying the fine. The net cost would probably be a wash for them, but also looking at layoffs to reduce expenditures until they can get a better feel for the numbers.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 29, 2012 03:32 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: Typo dynamofo at June 29, 2012 07:28 AM (FU9ql)
****
I hadn't heard of those rules. How do the fines compare to what they were before?
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 29, 2012 03:32 AM (piMMO)
There are times when I just feel like getting drunk, quitting my job and getting a government crazy check. Since nobody has the stones to stop the crackhead in chief and his army of moochers, why shouldn't I join? If 52% want the country to collapse - hey, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right?
Anyway. . .
Some of you may have heard the creepy story about Marilyn Monroe's body. It goes that, after her death, but before her body arrived at the coroner's office, it was sidetracked to a discreet funeral home where several powerful and rich men enjoyed her. . .favors. The story has been an urban legend for years, and though you can find references to it, an original source has never been tracked down (of course, would you admit to necrophilia?).
Here is a happier story about a corpse, although several historians say it never happened: The day John Barrymore died, Errol Flynn and director Raoul Walsh were at Flynn's house, drinking heavily and reminiscing about their old pal. "I can see the old fellow sitting there," Flynn sobbed, "telling us his most marvelous tales. How I miss him." The phone rang, and Flynn returned to say he had to see his lawyer, but would be back shortly.
Walsh continued to drink. He made a few calls and found out that Barrymore's body had been taken to the Malloy Brothers funeral home on Temple Street. One of the Malloys had been a character actor who'd worked on many of Walsh's pictures, and it was to him Walsh appealed: "I'd like to borrow Barrymore's body for about two hours. I want to take him somewhere to surprise somebody." "For you, I'll do it," said Malloy. They loaded the body into Walsh's station wagon and the director drove back to Flynn's house. When he got there, he told Flynn's butler, "Alex, Mr. Barrymore didn't die. He's drunk. Help me carry him into the house." The butler helped carry the late actor in, agreeing that he'd never seen a man so drunk, and they propped Barrymore up on the couch.
Soon after, Flynn came back. He walked in, saw Barrymore's body and nodded to it. Then, realizing what he'd just seen, he yelled in fright and ran outside. "You said you missed him, so I brought him for a visit," Walsh called. "Come on in and say hello." Flynn refused, so Walsh put the body back into his car and returned it to the funeral home. When he got there, Malloy asked, "Where did you take him, Mr. Walsh?" "Up to Errol Flynn's," Walsh answered.
"Well, why the hell didn't you tell me?" Malloy snapped. "I'd have put a better suit on him!"
And that's probably it for me. Going to spend the weekend drunk. I hope all you morons have a wonderful day.
Posted by: Mary Poppins at June 29, 2012 03:33 AM (zF6Iw)
Posted by: Case at June 29, 2012 03:34 AM (QwurB)
Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 29, 2012 03:36 AM (piMMO)
Posted by: Serious Cat at June 29, 2012 03:37 AM (zrpqj)
Some parts of the law have proven popular. But the insurance mandate is widely disliked.
Each time The Associated Press has asked in polls, more than 8 in 10 Americans have said the government should not have the right to require everyone to buy health insurance.
I added the bolding. So, 8 out of 10 Americans can plainly see that this is an overreach by the gubmint, a level of agreement so rarely seen in US citizens it ought to be framed and hung on a wall.
Y'all have fun today. I'm off to the golf course to beat a little white ball to death.
Posted by: GnuBreed at June 29, 2012 03:37 AM (ccXZP)
So glad you asked. They didn't exist.
OSHA and EPA have always seemed to have the philosophy that they should be able to put a company out of business with their fines though.
These are only things that I'm aware of because of what I do. I imagine the expansion has been in all directions.
Posted by: Typo dynamofo at June 29, 2012 03:38 AM (FU9ql)
There is a very good reason for us to go into full blown Cassandra mode.
This SCOTUS ruling gives the UNLIMITED power to congress in regards to
taxation of it's citizens.
The law gives limitless administrative, interpretive and implementation authority to the executive.
You clearly don't understand what has happened here, what was done here.
The very nature of the proper roles of the government and it's relationship
with it's people have been altered, WE ARE NOW SUBJECTS.
Albeit subjects with a vote, but as we have seen, there is a great and growing mass of our citizens who wish to enter into this state.
I do not wish to be a subject or slave to the designs of a king!
Posted by: General Woundwort at June 29, 2012 03:38 AM (06lNq)
Posted by: Gran at June 29, 2012 03:39 AM (p8FXV)
Posted by: Serious Cat at June 29, 2012 03:40 AM (zrpqj)
*** **** I prefer "Free Ballin" *** Morn' ya'll...still miffed today, thought I would feel better after a good night sleep. I was wrong.
Posted by: dananjcon at June 29, 2012 03:40 AM (eavT+)
Posted by: rickl at June 29, 2012 03:41 AM (sdi6R)
Posted by: Mr Pink at June 29, 2012 03:41 AM (GZhKn)
Posted by: Serious Cat at June 29, 2012 03:43 AM (zrpqj)
Posted by: In before the Troll who's in before the Troll at June 29, 2012 07:20 AM (7+pP9)
-----
And I tried. Unfortunately this time around it wouldn't take my card, for legal reasons. Gotta love the pieces of shit who oversee me to be sure I don't make money in ways they don't like. And that includes piece of shit RINOS like Romney.
Posted by: Hal Burton at June 29, 2012 03:44 AM (iYvMQ)
Posted by: Mr Pink at June 29, 2012 03:45 AM (GZhKn)
I would have preferred they kill it altogether.
They could have but for John Roberts inventions and convolutions.
Posted by: General Woundwort at June 29, 2012 03:46 AM (06lNq)
Posted by: BurtTC at June 29, 2012 03:46 AM (2pG7H)
Posted by: Serious Cat at June 29, 2012 03:46 AM (zrpqj)
Posted by: Case at June 29, 2012 03:47 AM (QwurB)
Posted by: Pollyanna at June 29, 2012 03:48 AM (IoNBC)
taxation of it's citizens.
Just asking but was congressional taxation powers limited prior to this? I wasn't aware that was the case.
Posted by: zeera at June 29, 2012 03:49 AM (XtxRN)
Posted by: Gran at June 29, 2012 03:49 AM (p8FXV)
Posted by: BurtTC at June 29, 2012 03:50 AM (2pG7H)
Where do you find this shit? And where is Vic with the morning update?
Are all the morons going to just stay drunk next week?
Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at June 29, 2012 03:51 AM (KZI7g)
Posted by: Serious Cat at June 29, 2012 03:53 AM (zrpqj)
@42 "The SAME stuff can be seen at the leftie sites after every loss they experience. ..Fuck you..."
Right back atcha, buddy.
Yeah, it may read the same as DU, but these laments are based on actual fucking reality, not the coked-out socialist worldview found over there.
How, praytell, do you figure we weren't fucked over by "one of our own" yet again in yet another misguided attempt at bipartisanship? You go on and keep compromising with the fucking Devil. You'll eventually be in Hell - just a little later then they originally planned.
Our own countrymen are at war with us and we refuse to acknowledge it, let alone engage them. I'm fucking sick of it.
Posted by: Jaws at June 29, 2012 03:53 AM (4I3Uo)
Posted by: dogfish at June 29, 2012 03:54 AM (N2yhW)
Posted by: Mr Pink at June 29, 2012 03:54 AM (GZhKn)
Prior to this ruling congress had the authority to tax you in order
to regulate commerce, prohibit or discourage commerce or institute tariffs.
This ruling allows them to tax in-action.
They rule you must only buy broccoli on Thursdays, you don't want to
buy Broccoli on Thursdays. Too bad pay the penalty, er ahh, tax.
You dig.
They can now compel you to do anything they want under penalty of taxation.
Posted by: General Woundwort at June 29, 2012 03:56 AM (06lNq)
I am not built to accept this meekly.
Talked to the wife last night about ways we could get out behind enemy lines and where we could go now. Options got a lot more limited yesterday.
Posted by: trainer at June 29, 2012 03:57 AM (IVoJS)
Are all the morons going to just stay drunk next week?
read backwards
Posted by: DaveA at June 29, 2012 03:57 AM (EyTMo)
You just got taxed to breathe. I'm pretty sure that wasn't Jefferson's intent.
But they could have done that at any time. Yesterday didn't expand their taxation powers that I'm aware of. And regarding intent, I believe limited and enumerated Fed powers were also the founders intent.
Posted by: zeera at June 29, 2012 03:58 AM (XtxRN)
Posted by: eat chocolate at June 29, 2012 03:58 AM (HOOye)
Posted by: Serious Cat at June 29, 2012 03:59 AM (zrpqj)
Posted by: dogfish at June 29, 2012 04:01 AM (N2yhW)
Posted by: eat chocolate at June 29, 2012 04:01 AM (HOOye)
Posted by: DangerGirl at June 29, 2012 04:03 AM (uAcgi)
Posted by: Winston Smith at June 29, 2012 04:04 AM (IoNBC)
------
Well, I guess the upshot is that they've been trying since before and after passage (thanks, Andy Griffith) to get America to accept and love this shitbomb. Still, it never has been liked. Quite the opposite. But I have come to learn to never underestimate the capacity for dumbassery of my fellow Americans.
What a shitty day yesterday. Couldn't sleep last night. Fundamental transformation is what the fucker wanted. Fundamental transformation is what he got.
Posted by: Lady in Black at June 29, 2012 04:04 AM (vOMX+)
And make a point of telling everyone they fire from here on out that Obamacare made their position unaffordable.
Posted by: Methos at June 29, 2012 04:04 AM (6LvlL)
1. Send a bill to Congress to repeal.
2. Issue a waiver to any state that has a majority of its Representatives and at least one Senator vote for the repeal provided that the other Senator does not vote to filibuster.
3. "Interpret" the law in ways specifically designed to screw people who are covered by. Increase the pressure at regular intervals (weekly) until the repeal bill passes.
Posted by: Laughing in Texas at June 29, 2012 04:06 AM (dL9LY)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at June 29, 2012 04:07 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Phil Collins at June 29, 2012 04:08 AM (9rZJb)
Posted by: Serious Cat at June 29, 2012 04:10 AM (zrpqj)
Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at June 29, 2012 04:10 AM (Cadn7)
Posted by: Glaucon at June 29, 2012 08:08 AM (mP9Rx)
Yeah, that guy can't be trusted.
Posted by: Benedict Arnold at June 29, 2012 04:10 AM (6LvlL)
Posted by: BP NJ at June 29, 2012 04:11 AM (ph70Q)
Posted by: eat chocolate at June 29, 2012 04:12 AM (HOOye)
Posted by: JohnJ at June 29, 2012 04:12 AM (Tt6ky)
One way to think about this: The decision is a modern Marbury v. Madison, where the executive who thought he had won had actually lost.
<snip>
If this scenario plays out, this will put Roberts in Marshall's rank, but that depends on the electorate and, if elected, Mitt Romney's appointees to SCOTUS.
Hugh Hewitt - Thursday
"Fish Sandwich."
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at June 29, 2012 04:12 AM (kdS6q)
Posted by: eat chocolate at June 29, 2012 04:16 AM (HOOye)
Morning. I'm still sick to my stomach over yesterday.<<<<
Me too. Although the three vodka martinis and two double scotches while watching season two of Chuck may have contributed.
It was a nice escape. Until I woke up and found we were still boned by that turncloak motherfucker John Roberts.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2012 04:16 AM (JDIKC)
Posted by: maverick muse at June 29, 2012 04:16 AM (BAnPT)
Posted by: Scobface at June 29, 2012 04:17 AM (IoNBC)
I hear that a number of GOP govs yesterday basically told ObamaTax to fuck off - they're not implementing in their states.
Walker is definitely one; my husband said Jindal is another.
Posted by: Marybeth at June 29, 2012 04:19 AM (fkaOH)
Posted by: rickl at June 29, 2012 04:19 AM (sdi6R)
88 @78
Prior to this ruling congress had the authority to tax you in order
to regulate commerce, prohibit or discourage commerce or institute tariffs.
This ruling allows them to tax in-action.
****
Congress has long used taxes and tax deductions to promote or discourage behavior. Is this the first time a tax is being used to discourage/punish inactivity?
CJ Roberts had no problem finding this easily within Congress's power, yet has Congress never done this before? Why would that be? I haven't read the opinion; did Roberts cite precedents?
Posted by: Nash Rambler at June 29, 2012 04:20 AM (vXucy)
It does not have to be repealed outright.
As I have said, he could kill it at the executive level.
He does not need Congress in order to do this.
The architects of this POS designed in the means for it's destruction, all the power is in the executive.
The executive can kill it.
Posted by: General Woundwort at June 29, 2012 04:20 AM (06lNq)
Posted by: Case at June 29, 2012 04:21 AM (QwurB)
Gee, the four libs on the Court voted as expected.
Imagine that.
Gotta hand it to the Left--they manage to appoint apparatchiks to the Court who never let them down.
Posted by: Glaucon at June 29, 2012 04:23 AM (mP9Rx)
So who thinks this piece of shit Roberts will explain his twisted logic during one of his summer jaunts overseas? More importantly, will he take any questions?
Posted by: Marybeth at June 29, 2012 04:24 AM (fkaOH)
Posted by: Glaucon at June 29, 2012 08:23 AM (mP9Rx)
Yep. And this is why they win. Brutally effective party discipline, combined with a mass mental disorder.
Posted by: Reactionary at June 29, 2012 04:25 AM (xUM1Q)
He certainly had the votes for that approach and the fact that everyone and their brother on the demo side said it wasn't a tax would have shielded the Court from criticism.
It may have been 11 dimensional chess, but I sure can't understand why he didn't make the same moves from the right side of the court.
But, I no longer care. I got an email from a bank executive in Singapore last night and we'll be splitting $38m that a rich man with no apparent heirs left in the bank. All I have to do is send my personal and banking information to this executive and he's going to wire the money into my account.
It's legitimate, bitches.
There will be blood.
Posted by: The Hammer at June 29, 2012 04:26 AM (y/w2M)
http://tinyurl.com/74ydh9j
Posted by: political correctness czar at June 29, 2012 04:35 AM (Q2Ne0)
Posted by: rickl at June 29, 2012 08:19 AM (sdi6R)
I quit flying my American flag the day the Usurper was elected. It was replaced by a Gadsden. My "Dancing with the Stars" neighbors are confused by it.
Posted by: RushBabe at June 29, 2012 04:45 AM (tQHzJ)
There will be blood.
Yes. Unfortunately, it will be ours. Go to Arthur Silber's blog at
powerofnarrative.blogspot.com
Read his post The State of Things and see if you don't feel like suicide after that. God knows I do.
Posted by: Mary Poppins at June 29, 2012 05:04 AM (zF6Iw)
The Three Ages of Man, According to Obama. -- At the beginning, a "mistake." At the end, an encumbrance. In between, a slave.
This would make a good t-shirt.
Posted by: katya, the designated driver at June 29, 2012 05:17 AM (bMLFV)
Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at June 29, 2012 05:39 AM (1iauC)
Posted by: RushBabe at June 29, 2012 08:45 AM (tQHzJ)
Funny, I used to have a pair of flag stickers up in my window at work, and took them down at that time.
Posted by: Klawnet at June 29, 2012 05:45 AM (a/VXa)
Posted by: Ezra's Equal at June 29, 2012 07:55 AM (3Prk1)
Posted by: Ezra's Equal at June 29, 2012 07:57 AM (3Prk1)
Posted by: Conservative Crank at June 29, 2012 12:47 PM (1zwZo)
Posted by: steevy at June 29, 2012 03:52 PM (Xb3hu)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2698 seconds, 270 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Mr Pink at June 29, 2012 02:52 AM (MpDjI)