Romney Advisor: Romney Thinks Mandate Is a Penalty
And thus the club that Romney could have used to beat Obama is laid down:
Via Hot Air.
Advisor Eric Fehrnstrom did a decent job for most of that, but “most” doesn’t cut it. Journalists don’t care about Obama’s hypocrisy; they care about taking away the club. Yeah, sure, he said one thing, he sent his lawyers to court to say the opposite, now he goes back to the original, blah, blah, blah. So Romney agrees with Obama it’s a penalty, huh?!
And Fehrnstrom should have seen that coming.
Watch how it gets portrayed in a short clip, even on Fox News:
So how does one avoid this trap? Look to Romney advisor Andrea Saul:
“The federal individual mandate in Obamacare is either a constitutional tax or an unconstitutional penalty. Governor Romney thinks it is an unconstitutional penalty. What is President Obama’s position?”
Never, ever say the word “penalty” without the word unconstitutional. It is an unconstitutional penalty. And always toss in the idea that the only way it could be constitutional is if it were a tax.
Romney had better play this better in the debates than his advisor did. Trouble is, no matter how well he plays it, his advisors have now given Obama a quote to use against him.
Dumb, dumb, dumb.
UPDATE: I don’t believe the mandate is a tax. But the Supreme Court has said it’s a tax. If the President wants to pretend this is constitutional, he is going to have to deal with the fact that it’s only considered constitutional if it’s a tax.
Never, ever say the word “penalty” without the word unconstitutional. It is an unconstitutional penalty. And always toss in the idea that the only way it could be constitutional is if it were a tax.
Thank you. That’s good advice.
aunursa (7014a8) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:11 amI disagree completely–you need to chose which pseudo-club you surrender to use others forcefully.
You–the plural vous–arent thinking very clearly. Think a couple of moves ahead.
If Romney argues Obamacare is a tax, for most people, and Obama advertising and campaigning, Romneycare=Obamacare, and campaign issue neutralized.
If, however Obamacare is a penalty, Romney has a cleaner path to arguing state v federal Tenth Amendment distinctions. Plus, Romney can hammer on Obama being untrustworthy and duplicitous–flip flopping–between Congress and the SCOTUS.
Plus, you want Romney siding with the liberal SCOTUS Justices+betraying Roberts? In addition, a huge chorus of other politicians and SuperPACs will be calling it a tax anyway.
Plus, if a bill passes the Senate with 51 votes, Romney will be “Constitutionally pre-approved” to sign it and will.
@ParisParamus (8ec053) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:12 amis Eric Fehrnstrom representative of the caliber of people Romney would staff his administration with?
that’s a troubling thought
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:13 amIt’s a tax, and a violation of the legitimate taxing authority, and a betrayal of the President’s campaign promise, really is it that hard.
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:18 amUPDATE: I don’t believe the mandate is a tax. But the Supreme Court has said it’s a tax. If the President wants to pretend this is constitutional, he is going to have to deal with the fact that it’s only considered constitutional if it’s a tax.
Patterico (feda6b) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:19 amI saw this in today’s New York Times in a 4-column article in the bottom half of page A10:
Romney Campaign and G.O.P. at Odds on Health Care `Tax’ by Michael D. Shear. (The web page is dated July 2 because it must have been posted online then)
Some paragraphs starting with the 5th paragraph go:
On Monday, Eric Fehrnstrom, Mr. Romney’s senior adviser, said the Massachusetts mandate was a penalty and that Mr. Romney agrees with Democrats that Mr. Obama’s health care mandate is not a tax, either.
“The governor disagreed with the ruling of the court,” Mr. Fehrnstrom said on MSNBC’s “The Daily Rundown.” “He agreed with the dissent written by Justice Scalia, which very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax.”
Democrats seized on Mr. Fehrnstrom’s comment. David Axelrod, Mr. Obama senior campaign adviser, said in an e-mail that Mr. Romney cannot agree with his fellow Republicans because to do so is “to condemn himself.”
For much of Monday, Republicans sought to minimize the differences between themselves and Mr. Romney by trying to focus on Mr. Obama’s own shifting characterization of the health care mandate. In 2010, Mr. Obama said the mandate should not be called a tax.
“The federal individual mandate in Obamacare is either a constitutional tax or an unconstitutional penalty,” Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for Mr. Romney, said. “Governor Romney thinks it is an unconstitutional penalty. What is President Obama’s position?”
But by insisting on calling the mandate a penalty, Ms. Saul effectively endorsed the weekend’s Democratic talking points and added to the clash with the Republicans’ line. …
Sammy Finkelman (c08134) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:20 amMaybe I’m out to lunch here and I’ve argued with other conservatives about this, but even if we concede it’s a tax it’s still unconstitutional. I keep hearing the arguments about capitations and other forms of taxing non-activity, but none of what is brought up is anything like what we’re seeing with the healthcare mandate.
Paul Zummo (77ff47) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:21 am______________________________________________
Romney had better play this better in the debates than his advisor did.
The politics behind Obamacare in the next few months will be both very interesting, exasperating and contradictory. Romney did support a mandated tax (or penalty) at least when it came to Massachusetts. Meanwhile, some on the right do buy into the idea that it’s irresponsible for people to go without health insurance.
A percentage of liberals who like Obamacare in general may nonetheless be hesitant about its particulars — perhaps because they also have a somewhat libertarian bent — but still would be skittish about Romney if they sensed he were staunchly against even minor reform of the healthcare system.
Simply put, Obama is way, way more to the left than Romney is to the right. So if Americans side with Obama in November, then that will illustrate just how ultra-liberal a majority of the electorate has become.
Mark (90205b) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:39 amNo, Mark, it just shows how poorly an argument Romney it, for nearly a dozen years now, the PAN, a soggy counterpart to the GOP has run Mexico,
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:42 am____________________________________________
Mr. Romney agrees with Democrats that Mr. Obama’s health care mandate is not a tax, either.
I guess by the same token, if people choose to finagle with such a mandate on their tax forms, that shouldn’t be necessarily seen as wrong or unethical, or no worse than, say, driving 58 mph on a highway that has a posted speed limit of 55.
Mark (90205b) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:43 amToday, its does not matter what the argument for its constitutionality is. That is over.
That it was declared a tax by the Supreme Court, following arguments by their own Solicitor General, must be hung about Obama’s neck with a gilded chain. He owns the massive tax increases required by Obamacare, he owns the massive deficits created by it, and it needs to be hammered upon relentlessly.
The public hates Obamacare for good reasons. Its a massive increase in regulatory reach, its a massive cost to the American taxpayer, and its a massive failure.
SPQR (348739) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:52 amit’s becoming increasingly difficult to imagine Mitt Romney leading a sustained effort to repeal obamacare
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:09 amThe worst aspects of Obamacare do not include the “penalty/tax.” The penalty/tax does not go to the insurance companies that are now obliged to offer insurance to sick people at the same rates as those to the healthy. This means that rates will go up radically for the well. The way costs are purported to be controlled is by rationing using an unelected panel, the IPAB, which will prosecute a doctor for prescribing any care not authorized, even if the patient is willing to pay for it himself. There are lots of terrible provisions that have nothing to do with the mandate.
I agree with emphasizing the unconstitutional nature of the mandate and Obama’s previous opposition to it in 2008 but it is a side issue. It’s the economy, stupid.
Mike_K (326cba) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:14 amIt makes a difference how this is argued and frankly both sides are blowing it as far as I can tell. Maybe Bill Whittle can come up with a simple way to explain it and clarify for the masses why O-tax has to go. He usually can cut to the chase on complicated issues.
Hell, maybe CJ Roberts will agree to a limited interview on PBS to help explain what his ruling meant–like, you know, in plain language.
This is one time that p.r. speak “confuse them with b*llshite”, and lawyerly “give ’em the old razzle dazzle” is not going to win over the electorate/jury. It’s just making every normal taxpaying citizen of both parties, plus independents, hate Washington D.C. and all politicians even more than they already do.
elissa (3a5879) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:15 amit’s a side issue but Romney needs to win a mandate to repeal obamacare as well
and it seems like he’s not trying very hard
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:16 amYou can call it a floor wax, a desert topping, it doesn’t really matter;
http://www.qando.net/?p=13340
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:17 amhappyfeet, at this point it does not matter. Obama must be removed from office in November. He can’t be allowed to continue to destroy the US economy.
Obamacare will self-destruct with or without Romney’s active help. If we have a GOP majority in Congress when it happens, it will be excised like the cancer it is. If we allow the Democrats continued control of the Federal government, Obamacare will metastacize and kill the US more surely than anything we’ve been threatened with in a century and a half.
SPQR (348739) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:18 amObamacare will metastacize and kill the US more surely than anything we’ve been threatened with in a century and a half
you’d think Romney would show a bit of concern
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:25 amif it’s a tax, it’s still unconstitutional, since the bill passing it originated in the Senate, not the HoR…
redc1c4 (403dff) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:32 amredc1c4, that’s a dead letter. Really, that’s the lamest of the arguments.
Not that any argument about its constitutionality matters any longer.
SPQR (348739) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:35 am“if it’s a tax, it’s still unconstitutional, since the bill passing it originated in the Senate, not the HoR…”
The senate amended HR 3590, which originated in the house, to be the health reform.
spointer (77ac66) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:51 am_____________________________________________
Obamacare will metastacize and kill the US more surely than anything we’ve been threatened with in a century and a half.
Everyone has been focusing on the insurance mandate, which was the most contentious and presumably unconstitutional aspect of Obamacare, and in the process ignored — or has been much less bothered by — other facets of the steaming pile that is the legislation from Obama and the left.
^ I’m sure the court’s recent ruling won’t have a negative effect on the synergy of the US economy. Yep, uh-huh. But if it does, we can follow the French model and penalize businesses for firing employees, or create so much red tape for companies that even think of laying off workers — even truly bad, irresponsible or incompetent ones — that companies are left in a lurch, in a holding pattern. But c’est la vie.
Do I offer that suggestion sarcastically? Given the lunacy of the left in France, which isn’t necessarily more idiotic than the left here, and many voters in that country’s recent elections giving a big nod of approval to ultra-liberal politicians, “progressive” people probably would congratulate me for making a great recommendation.
Mark (90205b) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:53 amSooner or later the GOP will come to grips with the graft the tax created and the power it holds over the common man. They will then begin to talk about how great an idea it is and that we should just accept it and move on.
d_fitz (ff4192) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:56 amObamaCare is chock full of taxes, all kinds of taxes, new taxes on surgical equipment for example and even racist taxes against tanning shops, and it’s enforced with a coercive mandate backed up by an escalating penalty to compel compliance.
So, ObamaCare includes both a host of new taxes and a very harsh penalty, and only by gymnastically conflating the two was Justice Roberts able to make Obama’s bastard legislation fit within the confines of our Constitution’s Procrustean Bed.
Q. How does Obama expand the size and scope of the federal government in accordance with a document which was specifically intended to limit the reach of government?
A. He gets a useful idiot to do his dirty work for him.
ropelight (f1fe2c) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:56 amThe ObamaMedia trying to pin down Romney on whether he believes Obamacare is a tax or a penalty is just a transparent distraction to help Obama with the fallout from the SC decision.
It doesn’t matter what Romney thinks it is or what he called Romneycare in Massachusetts. Romneycare was constitutional. Obamacare was unconstitutional according to the highest court in the land unless viewed as a tax. Story over.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:00 amA bit too much inside-Washington and missing the forest for the trees…
Tax, penalty, the public doesn’t care how Romney refers to the mandate it as he pledges to get rid of not just the mandate but all of Obamacare.
Aside from a relative handful of folks, public opposition to Obamacare isn’t due to the mandate per se or how it is or was characterized, but rather from their belief that the quality and quantity of the health care they receive will go down while their premiums and taxes will go up.
That is why I think Romney will continue to do well by pledging to get rid of the whole thing.
steve (369bc6) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:03 amAgreed.
People shouldn’t get too caught up in the PR for Romney, which may lead to disappointment if it’s interpreted as ideological. Romney is a massive improvement from Obama, and he’s also the only alternative. No brainer.
Dustin (330eed) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:05 am24- the ObamaMedia? You wingdingers are chasing fabrications in your mind.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:06 amSPQR is telling it like it is, people. Better listen up!
Icy (ed07f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:08 amThank GOD!!! tye came around to say nothing at all
Icy (ed07f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:11 amExcuse me, but why is any Romney “adviser” appearing on MSLSD. And is he actually a “senior adviser” or did he get promoted to that position by MSLSD because they liked what he said – if he said it. Do you actually trust those clowns not to edit what he said?
Mike Giles (d87ccb) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:12 amNewsweek poll of likely voters ranking Presidents:
Below Richard Nixon … right where he belongs.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:14 am____________________________________________
24- the ObamaMedia?
Yea, I don’t get that label at all. After all, the media is owned by big corporations, which we all know are pro-Republican, pro-conservative, and therefore most reporters and editors reflect their corporate masters. Yep, uh-huh. I’ve seen surveys that even indicate over 80 to 90 percent of the people in most newsrooms are rightwing to at least centrist.
BTW, I’ve also read somewhere that if a person holds his hand over an open flame it won’t hurt, and if one stares at the midday sun, he or she doesn’t run the risk of becoming blind.
Mark (90205b) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:17 amRomney agrees with the dissent; so what. That’s the argument that lost.
For Axelrod and Obama to run around and call this a penalty AND take steps to implement it is to condemn themselves. It’s unconstitutional.
That’s all Romney has to say, really. As President he wouldn’t enforce this penalty because the SCOTUS has said as such it’s unconstitutional. As President, he’d obey the Constitution.
Obama on the other hand wants unconstitutional power and will say anything to get it. Including saying whatever it takes to convince one gullible justice that it’s a tax (I simply can’t let Roberts off the hook for this, and I wouldn’t if I were Romney).
I don’t think that’s a hard sell. I’d tie it in with everything else he said that we know isn’t true to get this passed. And I’d tie it in with the other things he knows the Constitution doesn’t grant him the power to do, but he’s doing it anyway. Like unilaterally implementing the DREAM act when he said a year ago he couldn’t do that without Congress.
It has the advantage of being true. Recall his first venture into foreign policy, when he attempted to bully Honduras into placing their President back in office after he was ousted by the other two branches of government for violating their Constitution. I said then that this man we have in the WH has never met a Constitution he thought should limit a president’s freedom of action, not here or abroad, and he’s proving me right.
Steve57 (7baca9) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:19 amRomney *has to* think it’s a penalty, because structurally the mandate in MA is similar enough that if the Obama health care mandate is a tax, so is the MA health care mandate. So saying Obama ‘raised taxes’ is equivalent to saying Romney ‘raised taxes’, which makes the entire issue something of a non-starter from a Romney campaign perspective.
aphrael (af01a5) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:24 amSaying it’s a tax acquiesces to the Roberts position. Saying it’s a penalty acquiesces to the mandate itself. No, it is an unconstitutional MANDATE — government telling us how to run our finances when it can’t even run its own. The feds should be spending a lot more time getting their house in order rather than nosing into ours.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:25 amThat’s a good point, Aphrael.
Dustin (330eed) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:28 amAlso, it is a GOOD THING that both candidates agree that the Roberts opinion is nonsense. That they do this while disagreeing with the reasons says that Roberts did not settle the dispute and the constitutional dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the political mainstream.
In other words, both Romney and Obama are, like the two dissenting camps on the Court, pretty much giving Roberts a big WTF?! The first as-applied case to reach the courts will have no guidance.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:31 amSPQR, link to that poll?
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:35 amWhat do you expect from The Stupid Party?
DN (543479) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:39 amR.I.P. Andy Griffith
Icy (ed07f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:42 am35- it was just ruled constitutional. You claining otherwise does not change the ruling.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:48 amClaiming
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:48 amBTW, I disagree that we all now have to drop the constitutionality argument. Despite the erroneous and correctable decision of the Chief, the thing remains unconstitutional in the mandate however imposed, and in the scope of micro-regulation of the private sector. At least that should be our position, and Romney should be saying that he’ll appoint justices who see it that way, too.
He’s not running for governor or the Senate, he’s running to be the guy that PICKS the Court. He’s allowed to have an opinion about where it is wrong. Gawds knows Obama does.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:50 amIt was ruled constitutional as a tax.
JD (2c0b70) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:55 amI expect that if the expected 5-4 gutting of ACA had happened, tye-baby would be saying “oh, darn, I have to accept what the Court says; them’s the breaks.” Yeah, right. That’s convincing.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:55 amWhy would mittens want to stop obama care with all that money to spend? Mittens/Brown 2012
mg (44de53) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:56 amIt is an income tax penalty which makes it a tax. What Roberts did, in my opinion, is to expose the lie the Democrats have been saying that it is not a tax. It is absolutely vital to them that they tell the people that it is NOT a tax at the same time they have been making the argument to various courts since 2010 that it IS a tax:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html
It doesn’t matter what they CALL it. It doesn’t matter what they INTENDED. It only matters how it actually works in practice.
It is collected by the IRS. It is paid on your 1040. The amount is decided according to your filing status, income, exemptions.
Every person’s penalty is not the same. Families pay a different rate than individuals. If you do not file a 1040, you are not liable for any penalty. It is an INCOME TAX PENALTY.
By calling it not a tax, we are playing into the Democrats’ game! We absolutely must make them OWN this tax.
What the Supreme Court did is to expose their lies to the people. That is half the battle. Now it is up to us to throw their lying butts out of office.
It *IS* a tax and it is the largest tax ever foisted on the middle class at a time when the Democrats promised they would never raise taxes on people making less than $250K/year.
crosspatch (6adcc9) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:56 am35- it was just ruled constitutional. You claining otherwise does not change the ruling.
Comment by tye — 7/3/2012 @ 9:48 am
— Lots of things have been “ruled constitutional” . . . slavery . . . killing babies . . .
Icy (ed07f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:57 amIcy, amusing since spointer tried that “slavery” analogy on me.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:59 amI would have accepted the courts decision. None of the judges were in a position where they should have recused themselves (like bush v gore) so the ruling was fair. You and your side came to eventually accept brown vs board…
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:03 amEither Roe v Wade (7-2) or Casey v Planned Parenthood (6-3) has been the Court’s ruling permitting abortion-on-demand for the last 40 years. Not one Republican President (and no mainstream Republican presidential candidate) has agreed that this ought to be the case.
Why, less than a week later, does Romney have to conform to an opinion that EIGHT justices disagree with? Treat the Roberts decision the same way those eight justices did — with disdain and the expectation that either Roberts can be shamed into recanting, or the Court can reconsider the issue again in a year.
Much as it did with McCain-Feingold which it upheld, then struck down.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:04 amYou and your side came to eventually accept brown vs board…
Oh, eff you. Republicans supported (and usually authored) every last civil rights law between the civil war and now. It was DEMOCRATS that fought civil rights tooth and nail, until a MINORITY of Democrats were convinced it was a loser to continue and joined Republicans to outvote the South.
So, bite me as*hole troll.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:07 am48- killing babies hasn’t been ruled constitutional
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:07 amOr are you referring to the babies Bush killed in Iraq?
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:07 amYou and your side came to eventually accept brown vs board…
Another of tye’s demonstrations of his incompetence and ignorance. It was a Republican who enforced Brown vs. Board of Education.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:07 amOh, look! tye (once again) lied about the 2000 election, and then follows up by labeling our “side” as racist. Ain’t it cute?
Icy (ed07f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:11 amNah, dishonest trolls ain’t cute.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:13 amThey wouldn’t use the ‘y’all are racist’ troll if it didn’t get a reaction 200% of the time.
Dustin (330eed) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:14 am48- killing babies hasn’t been ruled constitutional
Comment by tye — 7/3/2012 @ 10:07 am
— Just in case anyone was still unsure as to whether or not this guy is a total dick. See above ^^^
Icy (ed07f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:15 amAnd a Republican who wrote the opinion in Brown v Board. Every governor who ever stood in a school-house door was a Democrat. Every Democrat in the South spent his election talking nigra nigra nigra.
I don’t think tye is necessarily ignorant. Lying sack of spit seems more likely.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:16 amSanford, Barnett, Patterson, Wallace, Fulbright,
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:18 am“Oh, eff you. Republicans supported (and usually authored) every last civil rights law between the civil war and now. It was DEMOCRATS that fought civil rights tooth and nail, until a MINORITY of Democrats were convinced it was a loser to continue and joined Republicans to outvote the South.”
The tale is better told when told as conservatives vs. liberals / progressives.
spointer (77ac66) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:26 amWell, the tale is better told as conservatives vs progressives when you add in the progressive support of eugenics.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:27 amIcy, it’s pretty clear that slavery wasn’t “ruled constitutional”; it simply *was* constitutional. it was a background fact of life at the time the constitution was adopted, and while the constitution doesn’t mention it directly, there are two clauses which, in context, clearly cement the continued existence of slavery as legitimate within the constitutional order.
i don’t think there’s *any* plausible reading of the pre-13th amendment constitution in which slavery was unconstitutional.
aphrael (af01a5) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:39 amA few questions…
1. In what party was Strom Thurmond until 1964?
2. How did Strom Thurmond feel about the civil rights act of 1964?
3. In what year did the civil rights act of 1964 pass?
4. To what party did Strom Thurmond convert in 1964?
Do yourselves a favor and check out electoral college maps of 1964 and 1968 if you want to know which party truly sacrificed for civil rights legislation. Just like the republicans losing the south for 100 years after Lincoln they got it back when democratic presidents achieved civil rights legislation in 1964 and 1968.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:40 amThis idiot must be the one that Murdoch was talking about. He and John McCain need to STFU.
martinkh (880bf6) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:42 am“i don’t think there’s *any* plausible reading of the pre-13th amendment constitution in which slavery was unconstitutional.”
And yet, the originalists on the court will tell you that the 5th amendment prohibited racial discrimination.
spointer (77ac66) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:43 amscalia and romney agree.
no conservative has ever challenged the constitutionality of the mass law.
dan (7a4ac5) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:47 amThey seemed to be applauding him then,
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/politics/201205/eric-fehrnstrom-profile-mitt-romney-adviser
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:48 amspointer is once again showing his ignorance of the structure of our government and Constitution.
Another basic civics fail.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:48 amAnother dishonest Moronic Convergence.
JD (c4b0dd) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:49 amSpointer, slavery needn’t be racial.
It appears slavery can reappear whenever the legislature decides to allow it. Or a judge.
htom (412a17) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:50 amHere, byrdie, byrie, byrdie!
elissa (3a5879) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:52 am“Spointer, slavery needn’t be racial.”
No but you have to be really ignorant of America to pretend that these aren’t tied together.
spointer (77ac66) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:54 amNobody wants to answer my Strom Thurmond questions???
Crickets….
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:57 amThis is like Zuul and Goser isn’t it?
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:59 amThe Romney campaign has learned NOTHING for McCain 2008. Why is Mr. Etch a Sketch on MSNBC at all?
Either this race is about preventing the US from becoming a nanny socialist entitlement state, like much of Western Europe, or it’s a loss for the GOP. 40% of the country have their hands out; might want to explain why this is a bad thing. the wor “Greece’ might cross your lips, or “PIIGS”. Romney and a huge part of the GOP establishment either do not understand this or don’t really care. Increasinlgy suspect it’s the later.
Bugg (234f77) — 7/3/2012 @ 10:59 am“Nobody wants to answer my Strom Thurmond questions???”
tye – Did Robert Byrd change parties?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:03 amtye – How about Jimmy Carter?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:04 am________________________________________________
1. In what party was Strom Thurmond until 1964?
Here’s a better question. In what party was Woodrow Wilson from? What was the party in power in Congress when it enacted Jim Crow legislation?
Far more recently, what did America’s “first black president” (aka Bill Clinton), a darling of so many on the left, say about at least certain black people behind closed doors?
Mark (90205b) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:05 am79- nope. Jimmy Carter didn’t switch parties because he isn’t a racist.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:08 am==Crickets….==
O darn, what was the name of that long time Democrat politician who was a kleagle (Officer)in the KKK? Robin, Wren, Bluejay?—-It’s on the top of my tongue. I’m sure it will come to me.
elissa (3a5879) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:08 amElissa do you want to take a stab at my Strom Thurmond questions?
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:14 amMittens kittens are running this campaign into the litter box.
mg (44de53) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:15 amIs Steve Schmidt running this campaign? Fehrnstrom just” Roberts ” the conservative base.
Just died recently, too. Pigeon? Kingfisher? Nooo! Byrd! Sen. Robert Byrd. He was the kleagle in the KKK. From Virginia.
elissa (3a5879) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:17 amHe dropped out in the 40s and later argued for civil rights, Elissa. Thurmond on the other hand was so disgusted with his party he switched to the Republican party…. the New Party of Racism™
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:23 amMitt’s running a strong campaign.
He’s just not handling the ind mandate issue adeptly from a conservative point of view. Aphrael has noted the reason: he can’t.
We can all sit here and put words in Mitt’s mouth for how to condemn the policy, but Mitt knows that this would lead to an excellent rejoinder from Obama about Romneycare.
The only serious difference between the two is that the latter is constitutional. As a policy issue they are very similar ideas. So if Romney starts calling this mandate a huge tax increase, Obama will offer a game changing response.
This election is about the economy and this incompetent Obama administration. Romney is winning. I’m not a fan, but he’s actually doing a great job and I don’t think his calculation in this issue resembles the Mccain campaign (which just plain didn’t act like it wanted to win).
Dustin (330eed) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:23 amTye,
Good grief, stop being so ridiculous. You are embarrassing yourself and you don’t even realize it. Have some dignity, man!
All of us here are as aware of Strom Thurmond’s party change in 1964 just as much as we are aware of the KKK Kleage Byrd’s change re Civil Rights after 1964.
So, exactly what is your point because it is getting tiresome to try to find something viable in your comments???
Dana (292dcf) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:27 am______________________________________________
Now that I think of it, and since this thread is, after all, about mandatory, government-sponsored healthcare, which was supported by another particular Democrat over 50 years ago, the deranged two-faced nature of Harry Truman does deserve recognition here too:
^ Personally, I’d be more comfortable with a person who was decent and sane in private — but who might have a libertarian streak about anti-discrimination legislation — than a flaming liberal who — of all people should know better than others (since the left loves to preach tolerance and diversity) — was almost perverted in his bigotry and racism in private. In that regard, it’s not too different from discovering that a grade-school teacher, adored by his young students, when behind closed doors collects photos of naked young children. IOW, {{{shudder}}}.
Mark (90205b) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:27 amAs I posted yesterday on another thread, Romney needs to hire Casey Stengel to run things; he’s used to dealing with people that don’t know how to play the game.
And, even in his present condition, could probably do a better job than the current leadership team has demonstrated.
2012: Vote for the Mormon, not the Moron!
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:30 amThe point, Dana, is that the New Party of Racism™ doesn’t admit even basic facts within a debate.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:31 amWhen all your other cards have been played, throw down that race card!
Ghost (6f9de7) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:35 amtye calls the GOP the party of racism when the GOP never put a KKK official as Senate Minority Leader from 1981 to 1987 and 1989 to 2010 as the President pro tempore of the United States Senate, putting that KKK official in the Presidential line of succession.
That’s the kind of lies tye likes to tell.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:39 amThe RINOs and Establishment are cancers upon the GOP.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:40 amDana–
It is so convenient for one side to find the worst possible examples of the other party’s denizens, while ignoring completely the equal embarrassments on their own side. Truth is, both Byrd and Thurmond shared more in their past than they wanted to admit later. And to the detriment of the country they both hung on to their power in Washington long past their time, and for far longer than they could govern effectively, or properly represent their constituents.
elissa (3a5879) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:41 amNew Party of Racism™
If I played identity politics, Tye, as a Republican minority, I would excoriate you for insulting me in this way. Just who the hell do you think you are?
But… as it is, I will simply point out that your feeble attempts at cleverness hit the wall with a sad little thud and you reveal yourself the narrow-minded bigot so emblematic of the left.
Dana (292dcf) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:42 am“79- nope. Jimmy Carter didn’t switch parties because he isn’t a racist.”
tye – Research is your friend. You don’t know squat about Jimmah.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:46 amYou mean a former KKK member? David Duke ran for president on the democratic ticket in 1988 until he realized he was running for the wrong party. He ran as a candidate in the New Party of Racism™ in 1992.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:47 am90- Yes.
mg (44de53) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:47 am86ing Fehrnstrom would make mitty more conservative and show the people if you screw up your gone. Unlike the current occupiers of the white house.
tye has received his new troll talking point and he receives ten cents in U.S. money for every time can prove he uses it on a blog. That’s what the contracts say, (at least from the rumors I’ve heard swirling around Axelrod HQ lately).
elissa (3a5879) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:53 amFrom the New Party of Racism™, the party that brought you “Ronald Reagan single handedly defeated the USSR” comes their newest ridiculous meme: “Jimmy Carter was a racist”.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:57 amtye, no, in the 21st Century, Democrats put a KKK official into the Presidential line of succession. Actually put there. Not ran for office. Put into office.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:59 am______________________________________________
That’s the kind of lies tye likes to tell.
You got to hand it to him that he is so shameless and non-embarrassed about who he is and what he stands for — and what he’s all about — that such brazenness rolls right off the back of him and similar people. I notice that characteristic in quite a few liberals, which probably is a big reason that most trial lawyers, most fans of weirdly over-sexualized Gay Pride parades, or a Bill Clinton or Al Sharpton — or a Hillary Clinton proudly asserting that she dodged sniper fire as First Lady, being exposed for being a liar about that, but nonchalantly repeating that lie soon thereafter — are of the left.
Mark (90205b) — 7/3/2012 @ 12:06 pm102- enough of your offesive ranting spqr. Run along and get me those Strom Thurmond answers doll.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 12:06 pmtye, you got spanked again because you are too stupid to know when one of your trolls backfires.
Democrats put a KKK official into the Presidential line of succession in the 21st Century.
You are an incompetent little twit.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 12:10 pmLet’s talk about Obama and the New Party, as opposed to the silly clown’s delusional rantings.
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/3/2012 @ 12:12 pm103 you are absolutely right. The New Party of Racism™ has a monopoly on truth…
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 12:14 pmRACISTS!!!!!!!!!
And bigots, sexists, hohophobic, misogynistic xenophobic war mongering imperialistic oligarchs.
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/3/2012 @ 12:15 pm105- having trouble finding that Strom Thurmond info spqr?
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 12:15 pmBe a dear an see what you can dig up what Trent Lott said about Strom Thurmond’s presidential campaign which featured a “back to segregation” platform will you?
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 12:20 pmEric Fehrnstrom is the same guy that started the etch-a-sketch problem. Why does he still have a job?
jasond (0b7791) — 7/3/2012 @ 12:25 pmComment by crosspatch — 7/3/2012 @ 9:56 am
It is an income tax penalty which makes it a tax.
What I don’t understand is what kept Roberts from saying that. Because he did not describe it as an income tax. But instead described it as a tax on nto having health insurance, which is a very very problematical tax.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/3/2012 @ 12:27 pmLooking over the decision, the difference between Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts was very small.
Both agreed (or at least Scalia didn’t get to the point of dispute) that Congress could structure the mandate as a tax with a exemption. And that it hadn’t.
Scalia, page 17:
The issue is not whether Congress had the power to frame the minimum-coverage provision as a tax, but whether it did so.
Roberts, page 42:
Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchasing health insurance, not whether it can.
No disagreement here. Note the word only.
They disagreed on whether or not it was proper to interpret the law as if it had been written that way, or more likely, that is the key point on which Roberts changed his mind.
Roberts page 44:
The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our rolecto forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.
As long as you could reasonably characterize it that way, the law should be upheld. (Roberts also said a tax could be so strong that it lost its character as a tax, but this clearly didn’t)
This avoided another issue. If the mandate is unconstitutional, what goes with it? It seems like Kennedy and others were arguing, the whole law goes with it. This was the centerpiece of teh law. Without it, but with guaranteed issue and community rating, health insurance would enter into a death spiral, and Congress couldn’t ahve intended that – and a future Congress because of the difficultly of repealing non-fiscal measures (60 votes in the Senate) would have a choice between letting insurance companies go out of business, or giving them a subsidy.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/3/2012 @ 12:35 pmWhat Roberts did, in my opinion, is to expose the lie the Democrats have been saying that it is not a tax. It is absolutely vital to them that they tell the people that it is NOT a tax at the same time they have been making the argument to various courts since 2010 that it IS a tax:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html
It doesn’t matter what they CALL it. It doesn’t matter what they INTENDED. It only matters how it actually works in practice.
The thing si, even the mandate is a tax.
The point about this being a tax, is that this is a tax on people Obama said he opposed taxing,.
It is a heavy tax on people earning below $200,000 a year.
If instead of this mandate, with its penalty you had a subsidy (for people with pre-existing conditions and so on like that) the Democrats almost certainly would not have placed the burden where they did.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/3/2012 @ 12:38 pmJimmy Carter once complained that there were too many Jews on the Holocaust Memorial Committee.
Which party says that black people are too stupid to get into a good school without help from the white man?
Which party says that black people aren’t smart enough to acquire an ID before voting?
Which party advocates the policies and practices of Margaret Sanger, a racist eugenecist?
Racism is a human condition, and as such, it holds no allegiance to any political party. But if tye were to ask him/herself honestly which party legislates racism more frequently, tye might become confused and wander the streets in a mind-blown trance, gazing at the wonders of the real world.
Did I just suggest that tye was capable of honest questioning? Sorry about that. It won’t happen again.
Ghost (6f9de7) — 7/3/2012 @ 12:57 pmGhost why don’t you answer my questions about Strom Thurmond?
Actually the democratic party is protecting African-Americans from thoae of you in The New Racist Party™ who would not emply a black man or allow him to vote.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:03 pmEmploy*
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:03 pmThe tale is better told when told as conservatives vs. liberals / progressives.
Only if you define “conservative” as meaning “racist” and “liberal” as meaning “pro-civil rights.”
So where to you place LBJ, who almost single-handedly killed the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1957, giving it to Southern segregationist chairmen to gut. They turned a strong voting rights act into a weak and forgotten commission.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:09 pm“tye” is manic
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:11 pmI don’t have much faith in Romney to shove this pile of crap back up Obama’s butthole. If Chris Christie was the candidate, he would be more than capable of explaining what a disaster Obamacare actually is. He has a way of communicating complex issues in very simple but effective language.
PC14 (87cbf8) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:11 pm116. Pathetic when trolls beg.
PC14 (87cbf8) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:13 pmWhat do I do if I am a proud African American and I do not want anyone let alone a political party to self-appoint itself to “protect” me as though I am a child who can’t think for myself?
Well, in that case I won’t vote for the Democrat nanny party. That’s for sure.
elissa (3a5879) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:16 pmMaybe he just put it down so he could get a better grip on it.
I’m more convinced than ever that these are just two faces of the same party.
htom (412a17) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:20 pm122- then don’t.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:20 pmThere there is Eric Foner, Leftist African-American Columbia professor and arguably the world’s foremost expert on Reconstruction, who says:
And they serverd the Democrat Party well for 100 years.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:21 pmMy bad. We have let the troll take over another thread. This guy isn’t even trying to contribute to debate, he’s trying to eff it up any which way he can. Marginal personality disorder, if I had to guess.
Note I said troll, and not trolls. I can find no difference in outlook or phrasing between tye and spointer, and I just wonder who hates Patterico so bad as to haunt us and uses countless sockpuppets.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:28 pmUntil a democratic president passed civil rights legislation and racists abandoned them for The New Racist Party™…
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:31 pmComment by elissa — 7/3/2012 @ 11:53 am
ty(k)e is overpaid!
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:35 pmtye’s probably on the right track. If we could just get that Whitey McWhiteskin out of the White House and elect an African American to the United States Presidency, then that should once and for all finally put to rest the notion that America is deeply “racist”. Oh wait.
elissa (3a5879) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:39 pmScalia, in the dissent, is rather savage, at Congress whether it was competently put together, this is why Verelli had to switch arguments, Landmark legal’s amicus, indicated that the penalty met neither the excise or income tax test for constitutionality.
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:41 pmNo not America. Half of us aren’t. .. 😉
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:46 pmHaving the entire Democrat Senate caucus vote to put a KKK official into the Presidential line of succession as President Pro Tempore of the Senate trumps any Strom Thurmond blather.
The Democrats were and are the party of lauding racists, promoting racists, and protecting racists.
tye is such an absolute incompetent.
SPQR (f428d5) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:48 pmI must be missing where Roberts derives this application of the taxing Authority comes from,
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:51 pmI still haven’t seen in, by contrast the Commmerce
Clause was more viable.
narciso, Article I contains the tax authority, it has a limitation on direct taxes, and is modified by Constitutional Amendment to permit taxation on incomes without the limitations of direct taxes.
SPQR (f428d5) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:56 pmelissa, KKK Byrd was a Senator from West Virginia, which was the part of Virginia that cut and run with the Yankees when the chips were down.
Democrat Byrd was also Senate Majority Leader and was also a master at bringin’ home the bacon, long before John Murtha ever thought about earmarking a pork barrel project for his pals in Western Pennsylvania.
Now, since my sister married one I can’t say what I really think of ’em.
ropelight (f1fe2c) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:57 pm132- to whom are you referring? Provide a link demonstrating that he was a member of the organization at the time he was voted to that position. In 2002 Trent Lott lamented that Thurmond didn’t win the presidency to bring back segregation. What number is the actual president in the presidential line of succession spqr?
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 1:59 pmWest Virginia, which was the part of Virginia that cut and run with the Yankees when the chips were down.
Being occupied by the US Army had something to do with it.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:04 pmComment by Patterico — 7/3/2012 @ 7:19 am
UPDATE: I don’t believe the mandate is a tax. But the Supreme Court has said it’s a tax.
The Supreme Court (or Justice Roberts) said the penalty was tax (or could be reasonably characterized as a tax) which you could avoid by buying certain kinds of health insurance (and by otehr means)
Now the whole thing might in some sense be considered a tax, but the legal question really was, was the penalty a tax.
If the President wants to pretend this is constitutional, he is going to have to deal with the fact that it’s only considered constitutional if it’s a tax.
He;ll juust hope not too many people follow the argument.
The point about this being a tax, is that teh poenalty (and the penalty combined with a mandate) is the kind of tax the Democratic Party is strongly opposed to.
Above a minimum income (the threshold for filing an income tax return) it is a flat fee ($695 when fuilly phased in in 2016) that then rises after it falls to 2.5% of income (in 2016 – 1% in 2014, 2% in 2015) for a single individual with no dependants. A tax return can be taxed up 3 times the rate for a single, children under 18 count as 1/2) until it reaches 60% of the estimated yearly cost of a health insurance policy, and then it rises no more. It levels out at $115,000 or so of income in 2016 for a single individual. For a couple with 2 children it would level out at 3 times thát income. It’s indexed for inflation
after that.
Super regressive, except for the feature of not taxing people with not enough income to be required to file a tax return. People who lose their health insurance more than a 3 month period after becoming unemployed are the hardest hit.
Now there are supposed to be subsidies (and don’t forget Medicaid) that would make it more affordable to get the insurance and may take the cost of insurance below that of the tax.
There are a number of separate taxes (with mo option for avoiding) in the bill. One of them is that Medicare tax now applies to unearned income. So that makes it less regressive.
Nothing goes into effect before the 2014 tax year I think.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:05 pmFellow Dem Senator Chris Dodd – Sen Byrd (KKK-Dem) was the right man at any time in our history.
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:07 pmIn 2002 Trent Lott lamented that Thurmond didn’t win the presidency to bring back segregation.
Make s..t up much?
You have a link to Lott saying those exact words?
Most of us remember it as paying tribute to a senior member of the Senate who could look back on a long distinguished career, and a man who had repudiated the racism in his past.
We can only hope that you will repudiate the racism in your present – but realize that it would be a fore-lorn hope.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:09 pmRush Limbaugh said this “stupid bill” says that if a state does not set up a health exchange (a web site, I think, where heaklth insurance policy offers that comply with the bill’s terms can be placed, and no one can be rejected) the subsidy, otherwise available, to people who get their insurance policies on the exchanges and whose income is below a certain level, will NOT be available. (this is only for people who get
policies through a satte-run exchange)
Now also a business with over 50 employees that does not provide health insurance gets a special tax if even one employee uses the exchanges and gets a subsidy.
The way Rush Limbaugh understood it, if a state did have an exchange, and the employees of a business located in it therefore couldn’t use one (unless one or more lives in another state of course) the business could not be hit by the extra taxes.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:12 pmtye, actually Trent Lott did not say that, as you have a habit you’ve misrepresented his statements.
But you’ve done nothing to refute the fact that Democrats actually put a KKK official in the line of succession to the Presidency in the 21st Century. A party line vote by Senate Democrats did that. Even within the lifetime of a seventh grader like yourself, tye.
SPQR (f428d5) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:13 pmMeanwhile, four dead in crash of C130 MAFF tanker fighting fires. Probably overworked due to Obama admin cuts in aerial firefighting assets.
SPQR (f428d5) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:18 pmOne doesn’t get away that easily;
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/18/obamacares-biggest-losers/
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:19 pm140- he didn’t repudiate it enough to reject The New Party of Racism™ and switch back to the good guys.
Oh and Byrd did the same with his past.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:22 pm143- make sh-t up much? It is statements like these that create the impossibility of taking you seriously even when you’re on to something.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:23 pmOf course, tye, its not a surprise that a KKK official is voted to the President Pro Tempore position by Democrats, since the KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democrat party.
SPQR (f428d5) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:24 pmPresident Teh One actually belonged to The New Party.
It is cute when the trolls are reduced to fevered BDS and RACISTS!!!!!
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:25 pm“Comment by tye — 7/3/2012 @ 2:23 pm”
Denying that four air crew died in a crash of a C130 fighting fires? You are a sick little punk.
SPQR (f428d5) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:26 pmThere is no such thing as the “democrat” party.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)
However, the New Party of Racism™ is totally real, led by scores of politicians leaving their native party to join the new party of Trent Lott, David Duke, and Strom Thurmond.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:35 pm149- suddenly you are being glib about human life and its loss? You sick, sadistic, sociopathic, hypocritical POS.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:37 pmComment by tye — 7/3/2012 @ 2:22 pm
If he did, why did he refer to someone (in a news interview in his last term in the Senate) as a “White Nigger”?
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:37 pmDo people who have “repudiated” the racism in their past continue to use such despicable language?
SPQR – this serial liar is heavily invested in its new meme.
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:37 pmComment by tye — 7/3/2012 @ 2:37 pm
Projection, it’s not just found in movie theaters.
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:38 pmRibert C. Byrd quit the KKK when he saw it didn’t actually help him (in the 1940s, in West Virginia)
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:40 pmHe’ll just hope not too many people follow the argument.
It’s not like Obama’s followers are all left-brained critical thinkers. Mostly gonifs and fools like the two here.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:43 pm“tye” wishes it could be a Grand Kleagle or Exalted Cyclops
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:49 pm152- I don’t know why Strom Thurmond used that language. Sounds to me like he found the best “safe haven” for his segregationist views when he switched parties in ’64.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:49 pmtye, not Strom Thurmond. Robert Byrd, the person that the Democrats put into the line of succession to the President in the 21st Century.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:51 pmtye, you got caught in another lie. David Duke never “led” the GOP. But that’s not a surprise since you lie so much.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:52 pmBy the way, tye, how did Barack Obama vote with respect to the election of a KKK official to Speaker Pro Tempore of the Senate … do you know?
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 2:53 pmBrief bios — Deceased Aircrew — there were two survivors (as of that story’s posting.)
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers … Semper Fi.
htom (412a17) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:01 pmhtom, friend of mine was working the ground crew at Peterson supporting the MAFF tankers. They didn’t appreciate Obama’s grandstanding “tour”.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:04 pm161- no tell me.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:07 pmtye, I knew you were utterly ignorant.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:11 pmThe leftists absolutely do not want to talk about the massive ObamaCare taxes, nor the dismal state of the economy. Look at how much effort they have gone to with their SQUIRREL look something shiny RACISTS act the last few days. It is always telling to see what they desperately do not want to discuss.
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:12 pmJD, yep. How many Democrats do you think really realize that their signature legislative accomplishment will bring down the entire Federal budget?
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:15 pm“152- I don’t know why Strom Thurmond used that language. Sounds to me like he found the best “safe haven” for his segregationist views when he switched parties in ’64.”
tye – Sort of like Jimmy Carter praised lifelong segregationist Lester Maddox after securing his endorsement during his 1970 run for governor?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:17 pmQ. How do you know when Democrats admit they’ve lost the argument?
A. They call you a racist.
ropelight (f1fe2c) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:17 pm“152- I don’t know why Strom Thurmond used that language. Sounds to me like he found the best “safe haven” for his segregationist views when he switched parties in ’64.”
“tye” you ignorant sl@t, that was your guy, not Thurmond
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:20 pmI would be interested in how “tye” defines racism, and if it considers racism to be an individual or group/collective action.
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:23 pmMore job killing by the job-killing Obamacare.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:33 pmSo your proof that the guy was still racist is that a black man (Obama) voted for him? Do you know how dumb that sounds? Do you think Obama ever voted for Thurmond for anything? You are exceedingly stupid.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:34 pmtye, its proof that Democrats looooove them KKK officials. And that trumps any nonsense about Trent Lott saying something nice about Thurmond at a going away party.
Democrats put a KKK official into the line of succession for the Presidency.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:35 pmAnd yes, I know, “job killing Democrats” is redundant.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:36 pm“make sh-t up much? It is statements like these that create the impossibility of taking you seriously even when you’re on to something.
Comment by tye ”
Feeding trolls is a mug’s game. I try to read the comment thread and give up when I keep running across the piles of dog poop.
Mike_K (326cba) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:42 pmc’mon Mitt Romney!
Colonel Haiku (4c1b04) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:47 pmyou’ve had a great year so far
unlike other guy
c’mon Mitt highlight
Colonel Haiku (4c1b04) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:49 pmpresidential character
that 0bama lacks
c’mon Mitt Romney
Colonel Haiku (4c1b04) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:51 pmshow Eric Cartman teh damn d00r
teh gaffe slingin’ F00L
He said joining the KKK was “the greatest mistake I ever made.”
As opposed to Trent Lott who wished that the segregationist was president…. no comparison.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:52 pmRIP…
http://t.co/XjcDa8RG
Colonel Haiku (4c1b04) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:53 pmlet us not forget
Colonel Haiku (4c1b04) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:56 pm0bama’s Economy
peeps at end of rope
Colonel Haiku, indeed Obama’s economic failures have resulted in massive unemployment, with devastating impacts on black teens for just one example.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 3:59 pmComment by daleyrocks — 7/3/2012 @ 3:17 pm
tye – Sort of like Jimmy Carter praised lifelong segregationist Lester Maddox after securing his endorsement during his 1970 run for governor
Later on, Jimmy Carter wasn’t too happy about Lester Maddox. Lester Maddox ran as an independent candidate for president in 1976.
He said he was a liar.
Google turned up this. I am not even sure the date is right, and I don’t now how to use it.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1798&dat=19710130&id=anQjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=V40EAAAAIBAJ&pg=7333,5501136
Sammy Finkelman (c08134) — 7/3/2012 @ 4:00 pmdaleyrocks, the troll is too young, as a seventh grader to remember Jimmy Carter or Lester Maddox.
However, that the Newsweek poll actually has likely voters ranking Obama as a worse president than Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter is amusing.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 4:03 pmThe joke ws. Liberals used to say that if Georgia got rid of the county unit rule (sort of like an Electoral College system by county, with big cities underrepresented) a candidate fromAtlanta could get elected.
It was abolished, and somebody from Atlanta was elected. Hail, Lester Maddox. Thatwas the joke.
Because of a very minor third party candidate a provision of the Georgia constitution kicked in and governor was picked by the legislature. They did not pick Bo Calloway, the Republican.
Sammy Finkelman (c08134) — 7/3/2012 @ 4:04 pmtired of same old gruel?
Colonel Haiku (4c1b04) — 7/3/2012 @ 4:06 pmour recipe for success
eject 0bama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
with a side of dispatched Democrats…
Colonel Haiku (4c1b04) — 7/3/2012 @ 4:07 pmSPQR – I wonder how it would reconcile its BUNNIES game with Lott’s statements with Dodd’s praise that Byrd was the right man at any time in history. Actually, I don’t wonder. He apologizes that away while wailing RACISTS at anyone that does not share it’s extreme leftist childish ideology.
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/3/2012 @ 4:09 pmJD, I’ve no doubt that tye endorses any Democrat member of the terrorist wing of the Democrat party.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 4:11 pm64. It was ruled that Congress could not abolish slavery in the territories. Lincoln argued another time the court might rule that abolishing slavery in any state was unconstitutional. The Dred Scott decision also said on;y white people could be citizens.
The whole idea of he curt decision was to avoid the trap of what happens when a slave who was free under a state law when in a free territory went back into a slave state.
Was he newly enslaved? The possibility of making new slaves would affect public opinion in the North. Why not some white people then? The Supreme Court avoided deciding that question.
Sammy Finkelman (c08134) — 7/3/2012 @ 4:14 pm183… SPQR… as bad as things have been, they are about to get even worse. And 0bama and his “brain trust” of inexperienced academicians don’t have a clue.
That will be remedied in November.
Colonel Haiku (4c1b04) — 7/3/2012 @ 4:21 pmColonel Haiku, it needs to be remedied. Because Obama is doing great damage, damage that will take several years to unwind, to our basic employment rates, to our energy policy, to our foreign relations and basic damage to our institutions with his increased corruption.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 4:23 pmHowever, that the Newsweek poll actually has likely voters ranking Obama as a worse president than Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter is amusing.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/3/2012 @ 4:23 pmWhat is really amazing is that Reagan is pretty much tied with Lincoln for first. Pretty good for a dumb actor.
2012: Vote for the Mormon, not tyke’s Moron!
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/3/2012 @ 4:25 pmWas that really Lincoln, or was it Bonzo?
AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92) — 7/3/2012 @ 4:26 pmThe Dems used to say they looked so similar.
There were serious people arguing that the antebellum constitution prohibited slavery in the penumbra. See Lysander Spooner‘s The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (1845). These arguments were worrisome enough to the South that Lincoln’s election was existential.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 7/3/2012 @ 4:31 pmall I know is this Harvard trash Roberts whorebag isn’t so much a judge as he’s a performance artist we get to watch turn the constitution into his own pe5rsonal vagina monologue
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/3/2012 @ 5:21 pmhis own *personal* vagina monologue I mean
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/3/2012 @ 5:21 pm190- only the New Party of Racism™ endorses terrorism so much that it decides an unjust war in Iraq is more important.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 5:34 pmthat doesn’t make any sense the policies Bush put in place have so far kept it to where food stamp hasn’t had to handle a terrorist attack at all unless you count where that one dude flew his plane into the IRS building
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/3/2012 @ 5:38 pm@113.
Really, because looking over the ruling I think the difference is huge. Nowhere do I see the dissent agree with Roberts that it’s a given that Congress could have done via the tax code what it could not do through direct regulation. The dissent seems pretty clear; they simply did not need to evaluate that tax claim because Congress had not attempted to pass a tax.
Here’s what precedes your quote from the dissent:
Emphasis as in the original is italicized. I bolded your quote, Sammy.
But I’ve noticed people talk as if Roberts and the four justices in dissent are just quibbling over a technicality, as if all five agree that as a tax this law passes Constitutional muster and that Congress’ failure to use the right “labels” shouldn’t be fatal.
But nowhere in the dissent do Scalia, Alito, Kennedy, and Thomas concede the point that this would be legal if Congress had simply passed this as a tax bill. They simply say it it not even necessary to get that far because this is in no wise a tax bill, so it’s not necessary for them to evaluate the government’s argument that this would be a valid exercise of Congress’ authority to to tax.
To repeat, this time with my own emphasis in bold:
…they simply did not get to the point of determining whether or not this was one of those cases. It is assuming too much to say they agreed that Congress has the authority to tax inactivity that it can not regulate.
They evaluated the Government’s argument that this is a tax only to the point they determined it to be a non-starter since the statutory language of the law did not support that argument at all. From another portion of the dissent:
They never got to the point where they even bothered to consider if Congress could have taxed this inactivity, once they determined that Congress had made no attempt to do so.
Since they didn’t explore the Government’s claim that this was a Constitutional exercise of Congress’ authority to tax, how can anyone claim they would have agreed with Roberts had they done so? They simply never say anywhere in the dissent that the Government’s claim is valid. They never got to that point.
When the dissent said “issue is not whether Congress had the power to frame the minimum-coverage provision as a tax, but whether it did so” nowhere do they concede that had Congress done so then they agree Congress would have had that power. They are simply identifying the first hurdle the Government has to successfully leap in order to evaluate that issue.
And the Government fell flat on its face. Therefore the issue of whether Congress has the power to tax what it can not regulate as Obama claims never becomes the issue.
Where in the dissent do you see Kennedy, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas acknowledging that it’s a given Congress has such powers? I simply see those four dismissing the issue as irrelevant since this isn’t a tax in the first place.
Steve57 (7baca9) — 7/3/2012 @ 5:52 pm79- nope. Jimmy Carter didn’t switch parties because he isn’t a racist.
Comment by tye — 7/3/2012 @ 11:08 am
— He’s just that li’l ol’ anti-Semite from Georgia, sho ’nuff!
Icy (ed07f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 5:53 pmThey speak of “those who support” the Obama administration’s tax argument. Clearly, they do not count themselves among them.
This, Sammy, is a small difference between the dissenters and Roberts?
Steve57 (7baca9) — 7/3/2012 @ 5:54 pmIcy, it’s pretty clear that slavery wasn’t “ruled constitutional”; it simply *was* constitutional. it was a background fact of life at the time the constitution was adopted, and while the constitution doesn’t mention it directly, there are two clauses which, in context, clearly cement the continued existence of slavery as legitimate within the constitutional order.
Comment by aphrael — 7/3/2012 @ 10:39 am
— Dred Scott decision:
Icy (ed07f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 6:01 pmThe United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott’s temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, which the court ruled unconstitutional as it would improperly deprive Scott’s owner of his legal property.
“tye” you ignorant sl@t, that was your guy, not Thurmond
Comment by JD — 7/3/2012 @ 3:20 pm
I would be interested in how “tye” defines racism, and if it considers racism to be an individual or group/collective action.
Comment by JD — 7/3/2012 @ 3:23 pm
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/3/2012 @ 6:03 pmIntriguing that Dred Scott would come up;
Historians discovered that after the November Missouri Court ruling, the President-elect James Buchanan wrote to U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice John Catron, asking whether the case would be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court before his inauguration in March 1857.[10] Buchanan hoped the decision would quell unrest in the country over the slavery issue by issuing a ruling that put the future of slavery beyond the realm of political debate.
Buchanan later successfully pressured Associate Justice Robert Cooper Grier, a Northerner, to join the Southern majority in the Dred Scott decision, to prevent the appearance that the decision was made along sectional lines.[11] By present-day standards, such correspondence would be considered improper ex parte contact with a court.
Even under the more lenient standards of that century, Buchanan’s applying such political pressure to a member of a sitting court would have been seen as improper.[12] Republicans fueled speculation as to Buchanan’s influence on the decision by publicizing that Chief Justice Roger Taney had whispered in Buchanan’s ear prior to Buchanan declaring, in his inaugural address, that the slavery question would “be speedily and finally settled” by the Supreme Court.[13][14]H
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 6:17 pmfurther more, there was a question of dicta on that score, and Justices Curtis and McLean, basically told Taney he was all wet,
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 6:25 pmJonahNRO “Perfect encapsulation of media bias: Romney is scary/weird because of his $/religion. Saying ANYTHING is scary/weird about Obama: racist.”
Colonel Haiku (4c1b04) — 7/3/2012 @ 6:29 pmGreat repost of the previous post with absolutely nothing additional beef.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 6:32 pmGreat post of something that makes no sense.
Ag80 (b2c81f) — 7/3/2012 @ 6:35 pmTeam Romney: No, we’re not declaring ‘cease-fire’ on Obamacare
Which is of course good news. Ed Rendell was on MSNBC saying ObamaCare is an albatross around the Democrats’ necks. Good. Make them own it.
The question is, how is the Romney team going to go about making them own it. Pat, I luv you like a brother and I have the utmost respect for how you’ve continued blogging despite the tidal wave of harassment, intimidation, and outright threats to your life and safety for doing so.
I just don’t think the tax/penalty debate is the way to go about it. Not like I think the Romney campaign will necessarily go about it the right way, either.
I think the focus has to be on the fraud. ObamaCare was born in fraud, passed the House and Senate in fraud, was signed into law by the Fraudster in Chief, declared Constitutional because the FiC told his Solicitor General to use any fraudulent means necessary to convince one weak-willed, weak-minded justice to put his stamp of approval on what everyone knew was a fraud, and right now the fraud is being defended by a campaign of lies.
From the “Cornhusker Kickback” and “Louisiana Purchase” to Obama’s demonstrable lies that you can keep your plan if you like it and your premiums it was all lies.
Then Obama sent his Solicitor General to the SCOTUS to tell more lies. Just because Chief Justice Stevie “tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies (tell me lies, tell me, tell me lies)” Nicks was primed to accept them DOES NOT bind me and therefore certainly not the Romney campaign from pretending this decision resulting from those lies is legitimate. It is simply another piece of the fraud.
The fraud Obama is perpetrating on the American people.
That, I believe should be the focus. I don’t think it should be on whether this is a tax or a mandate, although certainly we need to point out that as a matter of law it is a tax. But it’s only a tax because that’s what Obama had to lie about in order to acquire unconstitutional power to defraud the American people.
This ruling shouldn’t be a turning point. It should be used as another illustration of how the Democrats have consistently lied, bribed, and cheated to perpetrate a fraud on the American people.
Another reason to hate it along with all the other reasons; remind them of all those other reasons and this ruling is just another piece that completes the picture puzzle of fraud.
Steve57 (7baca9) — 7/3/2012 @ 6:35 pmthen they mince and do
Colonel Haiku (4c1b04) — 7/3/2012 @ 6:39 pmteh liberal panty-twist
low spark high-heeled boyz
The sound that you’re hearing is only the sound of the one-note echo chamber of leftism.
Ag80 (b2c81f) — 7/3/2012 @ 6:44 pmDebbie Poodleman Shultz
“The way we usually think of taxation, Wolf, is that taxation as the IRS administers is collected on broad swaths and large categories of individuals,” Poodleman Schultz said. “This is a penalty that will be assessed on the tax return if you choose to roll the dice and make us all pay for your being irresponsible and increase all of our health care costs.
“We’re not going to tolerate that any more in America. You have to be responsible and you have to pay a penalty if you choose not to be,” she continued.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/03/dnc-chair-its-easiest-for-the-irs-to-administer-the-health-care-mandate-but-its-not-a-tax/
Colonel Haiku (4c1b04) — 7/3/2012 @ 6:49 pm211- that could be in response to any post by any rethuglican racist here…
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 6:49 pmnow teh bob beckel
says Juan Williams should shotgun
teh Michelle Malkin
http://twitchy.com/2012/07/03/weaponized-misogyny-literally-bob-beckel-if-i-was-juan-williams-id-wake-up-next-to-michelle-malkin-with-a-shotgun/
Colonel Haiku (4c1b04) — 7/3/2012 @ 6:55 pmthe three hundred pound
Colonel Haiku (4c1b04) — 7/3/2012 @ 6:58 pmHermunculus Tyena
with face like clenched fist
211- that could be in response to any post by any rethuglican racist here…
Comment by tye — 7/3/2012 @ 6:49 pm |Edit This
Why dont you enlighten us? How do you determine that us rethuglicans are racist?
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/3/2012 @ 6:58 pmit’s sad when he tries
Colonel Haiku (4c1b04) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:00 pmso hard to sting like a bee
float like butterfly
“rethuglican racist.”
Wow, I’ve never heard that one before. Go over and post it on Kos quick so they can see how clever you are. beef.
Ag80 (b2c81f) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:01 pm219- Strom Thurmond
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:31 pmSegregationist ex-Democrat become GOP, gets elected only by his own state to Senate – entire GOP racist.
Actual KKK official stays Democrat, continuously reelected to Senate, becomes Senator Pro Tempore by unanimous election of other Democrats, even into the 21st Century – means nothing.
And this was the same tye with incoherent ravings of “hypocrisy” based on his lying about recent history.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:40 pmBut then lying Democrat trolls are pretty much de rigeur these days, not least lies about GOP or Tea Party racists based on fabrications.
Like those Black Caucus congressmen talking about being called racist names at a Tea Party rally when the actual video of the incidents reveal absolutely none.
Democrat fabrications are redundant.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:44 pmAggressive ignorance. By your standards, you and Teh One are racists because Robert Byrd. “tye” is wallowing in its idiocy today.
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:46 pmLook, you can’t argue with sound logic. If Strom Thurmond was a racist, all Republicans are racist.
It would be the same if Strom Thurmond had ever been a Democrat.
So, Robert Byrd was never a racist, because he was always a Democrat and Democrats can’t be racist, so he was never racist.
C’mon, logic people.
Ag80 (b2c81f) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:50 pmDon’t forget Slick’s eulogy, where he excused Byrd, aka Cornelius Sales’s KKK membership, because he had to do it,
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:50 pmI forgot to say. beef.
Ag80 (b2c81f) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:51 pmMeanwhile, the Democrats’ job-killing policies continue to lead the United States into yet another recession and national bankruptcy.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/3/2012 @ 7:57 pmtye peddles obvious lies expecting us to believe + we point and laugh at tye for expecting us to believe obvious lies = rethuglican racism at its worst.
It’s science, JD! That’s how he determines it.
You would know that if you weren’t one of those anti-science rethuglican racists.
Steve57 (7baca9) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:00 pmWhen you’re a liberal, you go to Patterico to show how smart you are.
When you go to Patterico to show how smart you are, you end up calling people racist.
When you call people racist, they make fun of you.
When they make fun of you, you throw your Cheetos bag and Red Bull can, breaking your mother’s Hummel figure.
When you break your mother’s Hummel figure, she wakes up and asks you to come rub her feet.
Don’t rub your mother’s feet.
Vote Republican.
Ag80 (b2c81f) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:01 pm223- if that were true… check your facts. Not in KKK since the 40s. Strom left his party a quarter of a century after that so he could garner the vote … Republicans.
tye (846291) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:02 pmThis is hysterical. We are racist rethuglicans because Thurmond, who switched parties almost 50 years ago, and died almost a decade ago. It simply has to be a parody, because not even “tye” is that effin stupid.
“tye” define racism.
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:09 pm8. “So if Americans side with Obama in November, then that will illustrate just how ultra-liberal a majority of the electorate has become.”
Let’s take ’96 for example, turn out was 49%.
Slick won with 49% of turnout voting for President, whatever that was, but not even 25% of eligible voters.
Seriously, does anyone really believe the winner in November will get 25%? How about 22%?
‘No One at All’ will take third I reckon.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:13 pmYou know, tye, you leftists are really big on breaking official ties with organizations to maintain your political viability on the national level, and then you get frustrated because no one buys the act.
There’s a reason for that.
Here’s a Robert Byrd fun fact. He’s the only US Senator drop the word “n*gg*rs” and mean it while on TV at any point in the 21st century. Not in the fourth decade of the last century. The first decade of this one.
Senator Robert Byrd says “white niggers” on TV
You can take the racist Senator out of the Klan, but you can’t take the Klan out of the racist Senator. Don’t you hate it when people notice that, tye?
Steve57 (7baca9) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:15 pmStrom Thurmond killed my cat. Really. beef.
Ag80 (b2c81f) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:15 pmI wouldn’t bet it against it, JD.
Steve57 (7baca9) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:16 pmBarack Obama was a member of The New Party in 1996.
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:17 pmBut that was a long time ago, JD,
and while The New Party may have been a good affiliation to have if your political ambitions extended no further than Chicago it’s a negative on the national stageand clearly whatever youthful flirtation he may have once had with him he’s no socialist.He’s a rock ribbed fiscal conservative.
Steve57 (7baca9) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:21 pmFor the ‘lesser of two evils’ crowd a query:
If tye were the prohibitive challenger of account versus Maggot, who would you vote for?
Playing a pollster at Rico’s I’m tossing refusals to choose between scat inorder that 50% be hypothetically possible.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:24 pm/nods sagely
Dustin (330eed) — 7/3/2012 @ 8:36 pmwhat you are really getting at, Patrick, is the idea of estoppel. Obama’s lawyers said it was a tax. They won the case based on the theory that it was a tax. And the court made it clear that if it wasn’t a tax, they would have lost. So they should be estopped from denying that it is a tax.
Its sort of like the Amityville Horror case. You didn’t know this as a case. Well, Patrick probably knows it is, but maybe the rest of you don’t.
Anyway you know about the amityville horror? Well, supposedly it is a true story about a real haunted house. This couple moved into it and spent years promoting the idea that it was a haunted house.
Then at some point they decided to sell it to new owners who somehow had no idea what they were buying it. So then they found out and sued the prior owners for failure to disclose the haunting.
And then the prior owners said, more or less, “the house is not haunted. there is no such thing as ghosts.”
But the court wouldn’t have that. It said, more or less, that they had spent so much time claiming it was haunted and promoting the idea that it was haunted, they were estopped from denying that the house was haunted. They could not, as a matter of law, deny it.
Same thing with Obama, only he is not estopped not only from denying it in court, but in the court of public opinion. He and his lawyers decided it was more important to claim it was a tax, than to risk losing his bill. He made that decision and now he gets to live with it. Because what estoppel really is about is preventing a person from talking out of both sides of their mouth.
as for this romney advisor, yeah he screwed up, but that is not proof that romney is going to lay down this rhetorical weapon.
Aaron "Worthing" Walker (23789b) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:10 pmWell, the weird is back. In barrels.
Good luck Patterico.
Ag80 (b2c81f) — 7/3/2012 @ 9:33 pm_____________________________________________
Comment by Aaron “Worthing” Walker —
After knowing what you’ve gone through, it’s a relief to see your name here once again. You truly deserve everyone’s best wishes.
“We’re not going to tolerate that any more in America. You have to be responsible and you have to pay a penalty if you choose not to be,” she continued.
It’s hilarious when a liberal — certainly a dyed-in-the-wool one like Debbie Wasserman Schultz — talks about responsibility, even more so when just about all of them are big pushovers or enablers towards the “undocumented,” do-your-own-thang behavior, criminals in the court system, inept school teachers, loose standards in voting registration, conniving lawyers, etc. It’s not too different from when the left bellowed about red ink during the years of the Bush White House.
BTW, I think the word “troll” is often overused, sometimes applied to people who merely have a countervailing opinion. But when I come back to this thread several hours later and see a dopey liberal still carrying on about “racist this,” “racist that,” and then happily jerking quite a few forumers’ chains, I think, damn, isn’t that the very definition of a troll?
Mark (d27584) — 7/3/2012 @ 11:39 pm233-50 years ago is much more recent than the 1940s, which is when Byrd left the KKK. You are a buffoon.
tye (5e8d79) — 7/4/2012 @ 4:37 amMore diversion from tye. He tries to turn every thread into his own topic.
Hey, tye, if you are so concerned that Patterico isn’t writing about the things you find important, then start your own blog. There you can write about whatever your heart desires, and the 3 or 4 people in the world who give a crap about what you have to say will read it.
But stop derailing the threads here.
Chuck Bartowski (f712b6) — 7/4/2012 @ 5:29 amHe ain’t doin’ it by his lonesome.
ropelight (8a0360) — 7/4/2012 @ 5:42 amJd’s version of “honest debate” is that all others must answer his question immediately and completely while he can ignore questions posed to him. Waiting on tgise Strom Thurmond answers… crickets …
Chuck: 😉
tye (5e8d79) — 7/4/2012 @ 5:43 amJeez! Who let he thread-jacker get into the sugar bowl?
Icy (ed07f1) — 7/4/2012 @ 6:30 amIcy – when was the last time Byrd dropped the n-bomb on national tv?
“tye” nobody answered you because it was a fundamentally dishonest premise.
Apparently idiot-boy defines racism as those it disagrees with. You are effective in making that term meaningless, because … THURMOND!!!!!!!
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/4/2012 @ 6:46 amHappy Independence Day! http://t.co/8uWT1nhr
Colonel Haiku (e89718) — 7/4/2012 @ 6:47 am248. “248.Jd’s version of “honest debate” is .. while he can ignore questions posed to him”
Child, you are a fool.
gary gulrud (dd7d4e) — 7/4/2012 @ 6:49 amThe decision, reads as coherently as ‘slimers’ enlisting precedents like Crowell and Hooper, that either limit taxing authority, or is applied to agents,
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/4/2012 @ 6:50 amProof that Fast & Furious was about inflating gun traces from Mexico, ATF memo found ordering agent to add smuggled guns to trace counts that had not been recovered in Mexico.
No legitimate law enforcement purpose. Hundreds of Mexicans dead, 2 US law enforcement dead.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/4/2012 @ 6:53 amSPQR – “tye” approves and applauds.
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/4/2012 @ 6:55 amMy new wallpaper.
Awesome.
Dustin (330eed) — 7/4/2012 @ 6:57 amYep, JD, we know that “tye” approves of smuggling guns into a neighboring country without that country’s knowledge, solely to inflate trace statistics to push a gun control agenda. Without any legitimate law enforcement purpose.
Dead Mexicans, no problem. Dead US law enforcement, no problem.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/4/2012 @ 6:58 amHere, JD, post on this, bar complaint filed against Eric Holder.
Disbarred for contempt of Congress would be appropriate.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/4/2012 @ 7:03 amAmusing Twitter exchange:
Marko Kloos. – “I still recall the crushing disappointment when I found out that paralegals aren’t in fact airborne lawyers.”
Tam – “@markokloos “Fighting counsel, from the sky/litigate and jump and die/two undergrads will test today/and only one will earn an attache.”
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/4/2012 @ 7:07 amSPQR – I will pass that along to our host.
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/4/2012 @ 7:15 amWe live in strange, perilous times.
People are penalized for not buying government approved health insurance because the healthy who pay their own way (which usually isn’t much) are needed to subsidize a wealth transfer.
Judges and prosecutors in MD are more or less compliant to attempts to stifle speech about a well connected democrat/terrorist.
Guns are being shipped, wholesale, on my tax dollar, to vicious barbarians who murder my law enforcement and many innocents, for reasons that simply don’t make sense.
Our society is spending with abandon. At the micro level, and even worse, as a body through the governments of many states and the so-called federal government. It’s like we do not care what we saddle the next generations with.
David Brooks had a poignant speech not too long ago about how Americans used to see themselves as links in a chain and be conscious of building something for our descendants. Now it’s as though we’re passing them a bill. This goes hand in hand with the ‘generation of me’, ‘you won person of the year’ attitude.
If there is a solution to this, I think it’s education. Kids need to learn all about Western Civilization to appreciate what a miracle it is that we have our society, and be inspired to carry the torch that seems to have been dropped. Unfortunately, education is entrenched with the exact opposite attitude and it’s a recursive cycle.
Dustin (330eed) — 7/4/2012 @ 7:34 amWell, Dustin, according to some indication, they are in league with the malefactors, in the way they have gone after O’Keefe, and not only in MD, but in NJ.
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/4/2012 @ 7:37 amhence the bogus Naffe complaint.
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/4/2012 @ 7:56 amit quacks like a duck, but I hope it’s not that bad.
My track record, however, errs on the side of naivety.
Dustin (330eed) — 7/4/2012 @ 8:18 amWell you could ask Tom Delay about that, butyou might have to wait a while, they are still going
narciso (ee31f1) — 7/4/2012 @ 8:21 amafter Haley in S.Carolina,
I had to swing by really quick so that I could read what I do and don’t believe. . Thanks all.
tye (5e8d79) — 7/4/2012 @ 8:44 amtye does not like it when his rhetorical tricks are used against him. That’s the kind of hypocrisy we’ve come to expect from dishonest trolls.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/4/2012 @ 8:48 am268- thank you! I wasn’t sure what it was called when someone makes a glib comment about a plane crash and somehow faults Obama for it.. yet makes jokes about everybody blaming Bush for things. I was going to call it myopic or just plain stupid of them, but apparently it is my problem.
Do I get to play this game of opinion attribution too? Spqr doesn’t like it when black people vote or experience fair employment opportunities. He also doesn’t like that, by any definition of the word, that is indeed racist.
tye (5e8d79) — 7/4/2012 @ 9:02 amLiar.
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/4/2012 @ 9:12 am270 I blame bush. Am I right jd? Am I right?
tye (5e8d79) — 7/4/2012 @ 9:17 amFor those who watch this stuff and pay attention, the Democrat spin machine (aided by their flying trolls) always, always tells us and shows us exactly what they fear most. In this single respect I guess one can say they really are transparent. And it is quite helpful to their political adversaries.
elissa (9c0d0c) — 7/4/2012 @ 9:32 amAlmost never, tye
Chuck Bartowski (c6bde0) — 7/4/2012 @ 9:41 amI was asking jd.
tye (5e8d79) — 7/4/2012 @ 11:32 amAlmost never, “tye”
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/4/2012 @ 11:51 amHey! There he is! Can you give us a classic “i blame bush” followed by one of your trademark accusations that something beyond the president’s control is Obama’s fault? Someday that will make your greatest hits album.
tye (5e8d79) — 7/4/2012 @ 11:59 amIt is so cute how “tye” stalks me.
JD (dfaa6e) — 7/4/2012 @ 4:04 pmWaldo Canyon fire started in the Pike National Forest on Friday June 22, but nobody in the Forest Service noticed until it was already out of control and headed for Manitou Springs Saturday afternoon.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/4/2012 @ 5:16 pmWe are a bunch of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our community. Your site offered us with helpful information to work on. You have done an impressive job and our whole group can be grateful to you.
Performance based SEO (794169) — 7/4/2012 @ 9:25 pmNot to worry, tye. You made the cut; you’re on the Greatest S*its album.
Icy (9651ff) — 7/4/2012 @ 10:18 pm