Recent Activity
Search BL Rag
About This Site

The BL RAG is dedicated to the idea of free expression, thus we welcome and encourage reader  commentary on current events and issues, music, sports, or other topics of interest, no matter what one's political leanings or worldview.

  

Site Management:

Front Page Section Editors: Machiavelli, Skinnydipinacid, and Redbeard

Miscellanea Editor: Zoy Clem

Poetry Editor: Lenny

Music Editors: see schedule below

***

Site Editors: Skinnydipinacid and Zoy Clem

Maintenance Man: Master Admin Dude

 

Alumni:
Eric Olsen, Fornax, GrayRider, Winston, Jimmmco, and WesMorgan1

 

KRAG Music Section Schedule:

Sunday - Jgeagle5

Monday - Rhythm & Truth

Tuesday - Machiavelli

Wednesday - GrayRider

Thursday - Skinny

Friday - Fornax

Saturday - Zoy Clem

On-call - Schwabman

Powered by Squarespace
« Hot Mic Reveals A Hidden Post Election Obama Agenda | Main | Weekend Open Thread »
Sunday
Mar252012

SCOTUS/ObamaCare Showdown Begins

CBS NEWS

After two years of arguments and law suits by a couple of dozen states, the United States Supreme Court will finally take up the Constitutionality of Obama's massive health care law.

This is an issue because the key part of the law-the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance or pay a penalty on their taxes-doesn't take effect until 2014. One federal appeals court ruled the lawsuits should wait until that actually happens. But even if the Supreme Court agrees, the justices this week will go ahead and hear all the other arguments against the law.

At the heart of the matter is the 'individual mandate' portion of the law.

Tuesday is the ballgame. (sic) That's when the justices will take up the so-called "individual mandate," the controversial requirement that Americans have to buy insurance.

Legal experts say that ruling the mandate as not Constitutional drives a stake in the heart of the rest of the law.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    Response: famous charcoal
    [...]SCOTUS/ObamaCare Showdown Begins - Blog - Watch for Flying Adjectives[...]

Reader Comments (76)

If any conservative doubts the critical need to dump Obama, a quick look at the Supreme Court will put those doubts to rest. With 4 of the 9 justices being leftists who refusing to follow the Constitution on a regular basis, and even going so far afield as to say that international precedent should trump the Constitution, the Court is teetering on the edge of disaster. Obama would like nothing more than to be able to nominate another leftist, and the icing on the cake would be if that replacement were for one of the constitutional justices now serving.

The greater question, over and above the specifics of the so-called "health care" bill, is whether or not Americans want to give up their personal liberties in order to allow Big Brother to determine the course of their lives. I won't go willingly down the path to voluntary indentured servitude.

March 26, 2012 at 07:10 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Red;

I honestly think it's 6-3 to over turn. My only fear is the justices may think even though this is the worst piece of legislation in the last 150 years they'll defer back to Congress to deal with this steaming pile of shit and stay out of it.

March 26, 2012 at 07:35 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

This whole process scares the shit out of me. I would actually prefer the alternative mentioned by TM methinks. At least we the people have a minute level of control over those SOB's. We have none over the SCOTUS except by way of congress and the POTUS.

BTW, I've bout had my fill of Rick Santorum. I am convinced that he is truly hung up on Romney's Mormonism more than anything else he proclaims. He is really starting to lose it and making a fool of himself in the process. Not to mention pissing me off.

March 26, 2012 at 10:11 | Registered CommenterTijuana

If you post over at a lib site (pick your poison) and challenge the other lib posters to explain how the government can force a citizen and private company into a contract which by the constitution is strictly forbidden they have no come back. Generally the responses cover two areas; "well what about car insurance" and my favorite "Clarence Thomas is a Nazi and only supports the rich." There you have it.

March 26, 2012 at 11:51 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

So conservatives are in favor of mandatory car insurance and mandatory transvaginal probes, but not mandatory health insurance? Okay, got it.

March 26, 2012 at 12:02 | Registered CommenterChoy Lee Mu

Actually I wouldn't be suprised if this conservative-packed Supreme Court overturned the healthcare bill which was lawfully passed by Congress and signed by the President. This court should already be considered the most activist court in decades, especially after recently reversing 100 years of campaign finance law in the 'Citizens United' case.

Remember when then Judge Roberts said during the confirmation process that "his job was to call balls and strikes, not to pitch or bat". Overturning McCain-Fiengold was inarguably an act of highly aggressive judicial activism that we are only now beginning to feel the ramifications of(Superpacs and foriegn money in our elections). Have conservatives really thought about the consequences of a conservative activist court overturning the law of the land based solely on their political ideology? Have you thought about the skyrocketing costs and legions of uninsured? Or you just don't care as long as Obama loses?

March 26, 2012 at 12:37 | Registered CommenterChoy Lee Mu

McCain-Feingold violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, and was struck down on that basis. This isn't hard to understand, unless you're a leftist who wants to curtail the rights of people, or groups of people, to speak out before an election. You want to get big money out of the process? Fine, a worthy cause. So go write a law that doesn't infringe on basic rights.

Obamacare also grossly exceeds the powers granted to the federal government under the Constitution, in more ways than one, but most obviously by trying to force Americans to buy a product that they may or may not want to buy. Obamacare must be struck down. It's tyrannical statism at its heart.

March 26, 2012 at 13:32 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Choy, there is no federal mandate for car insurance...it's a states issue. Besides, driving a car is a choice.

March 26, 2012 at 14:23 | Registered CommenterGrayRider

driving a car is a choice.

I think that's a good point actually. One has the option, however seriously inconvenient, to forgo owning or operating private transportation. However, everyone at some point in their life gets injured or sick. The Constitution does not guarantee your right to shift the burden of your healthcare costs onto insured people.

March 26, 2012 at 14:55 | Registered CommenterWinston

Convoluted logic from the left again.

The correct answer is to take responsibility for your own health and health insurance, in order NOT to shove the burden onto others.

March 26, 2012 at 15:00 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

The correct answer is to take responsibility for your own health and health insurance, in order NOT to shove the burden onto others.

That’s what Obamacare Romneycare was designed to require—taking responsibility. It actually requires people to take responsibility. Rather than just, you know, administer a lot of bloviating lectures about The Need to Take Responsibility.

I like the way that Romney guy operates.

Healthcare is so emblematic of how the Right operates. To them, it’s so obvious: blowing a lot of pompous hot air at people about Taking Personal Responsibility is somehow better than actually making them, you, know, responsible.

For them, making bloviating fart-sounds always trumps actually solving serious problems. They take the same approach to teenage pregnancy, public education, housing and any number of other modern problems. Emitting gaseous noises is a high priority for them, but actually helping, not so much. Mostly they’d rather hinder.

March 26, 2012 at 15:23 | Registered CommenterWinston

I've always been fascinated by the left's love of a Big Brother society.

March 26, 2012 at 18:23 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Sounds like Winston has a gas problem. I suggest Gas-X. I wonder how everyone in NYC would feel if they had to buy car insurance even thought they don't own a car. Not to get off a tangent but the group most supportive of Citizens United isn't the corporations, it's the unions. They'll fight like hell to keep it.

One of the many constitutional issues that kills Obamacare is the "limits" question. They can never explain what the Commerce Clause can't do it if can force you to 'not' do something.

March 26, 2012 at 18:42 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

We are going to make you be responsible. Interesting idea. How can we apply that to women having multiple babies out of wedlock and to welfare recipients who refuse to work and many many more issues that cost the "taxpayer" more and more of their hard earned money. You know, just like those folks who go to emergency rooms now, that we have to pay for, so we are going to MAKE them BUY insurance. What's good for solving one problem should be good for solving others, eh.

Somehow methinks liberals only like these ideas when they expand the welfare state and grow gov't ever bigger. Never when it attempts to do the reverse.

March 26, 2012 at 19:09 | Registered CommenterTijuana

The word 'responsibility' is a lot like 'free' to the left. It's always someone else's responsibility to be responsible for thos that aren't or it's only free when someone else pays for it.

March 26, 2012 at 19:21 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

The word 'responsibility' is a lot like 'free' to the left. It's always someone else's responsibility to be responsible for thos that aren't or it's only free when someone else pays for it.

March 26, 2012 at 19:22 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

However, everyone at some point in their life gets injured or sick. The Constitution does not guarantee your right to shift the burden of your healthcare costs onto insured people.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people" - 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

March 26, 2012 at 20:25 | Registered CommenterGrayRider

Now Gray, you shouldn't do that. You know how terribly distressed leftists become when confronted with Constitutional restraints on their statist utopia. #$%@&^% ol' Constitution; always getting in their way.

March 27, 2012 at 06:30 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

The legal pundits are saying that today is the critical day at SCOTUS, with arguments presented about the constitutionality of the individual mandate. If I understood the legal mumbo-jumbo correctly, yesterday was a major obstacle overcome, with the Court agreeing that today's arguments could go forward.

Obamacare is a massive power grab, pure and simple. It is wrong on just about every level. The individual mandate is only the tip of the rotten iceberg. The whole thing needs to be scrapped, not amended or replaced by another federal plan.

March 27, 2012 at 07:18 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Didn't you use almost exactly the same words about Social Security?

March 27, 2012 at 08:53 | Unregistered CommenterWinston

No one is claiming that the Constitution gives each person an unalienable right not to buy insurance.

--Ann Coulter

March 27, 2012 at 10:42 | Unregistered CommenterWinston

Well I think we can all agree the constitution decries the unalienable right of females to contraceptives. I think it's tucked away in the shadows of the first amendment.

March 27, 2012 at 11:17 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Today has to be a better day for the Solicitor General than he had yesterday. Even Kagan and Breyer made fun of him when he couldn't keep his "tax" and "penalty" arguments clear. Ah' yes the Obama administration has hired the best & brightest.

March 27, 2012 at 11:20 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

You know what’s kind of funny? You might think “conservatives” would support ACA because it bends the cost curve (saves money) behind the foremost driver of the nation’s deficit (something they insist is quite important to them). You might think they’d be approving that it manages to do so while still preserving a private insurance market.

You might think they’d support it because, well, who designed it? Conservative think tanks like Heritage Foundation and Manhattan Institute, that’s who. You also might think they’d support it because a Republican governor (their probable Presidential nominee) then got his legislature to pass it, then urged that it be adopted on a national level. If nothing else, you’d think they’d like it because—instead of just emitting futile noises about people needing to take personal responsibility for their own care and costs—it actually requires them to do exactly that. So it substitutes actual effective action for the mere emission of sanctimonious flatulence.

Yeah, ya might think those would be six pretty substantial reasons for “conservatives” to get behind this particular healthcare reform. You’d be missing something important, though: can anyone guess what it is?

March 27, 2012 at 14:11 | Registered CommenterWinston

Ann Coulter is nuts.

And WAY too skinny.

Next topic.

March 27, 2012 at 14:11 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Ohhhh, wait, Winston!!!! I've got it!!!! We don't like unconstitutional socialist programs and massive taxation to pay for them because WE'RE ALL RAAAAAAACISTS!!!!!

March 27, 2012 at 14:14 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Obamacare bends the cost curve (saves money); what??? Bwa,bwa,bwa,bwa.

Bullshit cost projection at signing- $954 billion
Latest CBO projection-$1.8 trillion.

Obamacare bends the cost curve; straight up.

March 27, 2012 at 14:17 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

We don't like unconstitutional socialist programs and massive taxation to pay for them deficit-lowering, private-insurance-market-preserving, conservative-think-tank-designed, GOP-Governor-sponsored, responsibility-requiring healthcare reform because WE'RE ALL RAAAAAAACISTS!!!!! did you know the President is a Negro?

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!!

March 27, 2012 at 14:40 | Registered CommenterWinston

What were you saying about me misconstruing your continual stream of ridiculous racism accusations, Winston? Thanks for documenting your unmitigated jackassery once again. It's amazing how someone like you, with what I presume to be an advanced education, can be so stunningly foolish.

March 27, 2012 at 15:26 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

Well, help a dude out here. I just don’t find it very plausible that “conservatives” made such a U-turn on a dime and abruptly turned against a policy “conservatives” designed, sponsored, promoted, and recommended the nation adopt, that addresses their biggest hobby horse issue (deficit), in a private-market way, one that treats personal responsibility seriously as something to which people are to be held accountable in real ways instead of just some flatulence to pay lip service to. I’m really stumped. I’m trying to come up with an explanation.
Can you help? It’s not enough to say “we changed our minds.”

March 27, 2012 at 16:20 | Registered CommenterWinston

Redbeard, you seem to think Nooshans are still owed some presumption of innocence around accusations they’re racial jerks, but I disagree. When you accused President Obama of being a closet totalitarian for once being heard to mutter, “Some days I wish I ran the world” (pretty much verbatim what GWB once said), I recalled an employment law principle: An employer can get a discrimination lawsuit thrown out early if they can plausibly explain what—aside from a prohibited consideration like race/gender/disability—prompted them to treat apparently similar employees differently. Plaintiffs then get the chance to argue, if they can, the legitimate reason given for the disparate treatment is just a pretext.

Well, I challenged you to come up with a single difference between Obama’s and Bush’s virtually identical statements and you told me to get stuffed, you didn’t have to come up with one.

The offensive, provocative, insulting language Nooshans consistently use about this Administration would prompt anyone to wonder what NON-racial reason could possibly lead them to so vehemently and heatedly oppose a HCR policy as thoroughly conservative as this one—designed in conservative think tanks, promoted by a GOP governor, supported by conservative policy wonks, and promoting (alleged) conservative “values” of preserving a “free” insurance market and ACTUALLY (not rhetorically) ensuring personal responsibility.

At this point it’s no longer the burden of your accusers to show you are racially motivated. The burden’s yours to prove you’re not. Why else would you turn on this thoroughly conservative piece of legislation? The floor is yours.

March 27, 2012 at 17:03 | Registered CommenterWinston

No conservative group, think tank, individual or anyone with an IQ over three EVER designed that steaming pile of shit known as Obamacare. Nice try.

March 27, 2012 at 17:03 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Sorry Winston when you step out of the cloistered world of HuffPo, TPM, Kos and Media Matters you're going to find people just don't like this guy and think he's incompetent. If you attribute that to everyone being racist and disregard the majority feeling he’s ruining this country that's your problem.

March 27, 2012 at 17:11 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Sorry Tom, but your ignorance knows no bounds. The individual mandate came from the Heritage Foundation and Manhattan Institute, wingnut wellfare "conservative' policy shops. You can try and distinguish that from "Obamacare" if you like, but that's the essence of the Affordable Care Act. For the thousandth time, I don't chalk every disagreement up to racism. However, some people consistently use insulting, offensive and clearly racially tinged language, and with respect to them, I feel safe drawing the appropriate conclusions.

March 27, 2012 at 17:45 | Unregistered CommenterWinston

And now we get the spectacle of Winston defending his depraved behavior by weakly claiming that he doesn't "chalk every disagreement up to racism."

What a hellishly distorted world Winston has created in his own mind. He must take his inspiration from Munch and Goya, albeit unwittingly. So sad.

March 27, 2012 at 20:13 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/12/why-the-personal-mandate-to-buy-health-insurance-is-unprecedented-and-unconstitutional

March 27, 2012 at 20:17 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/12/why-the-personal-mandate-to-buy-health-insurance-is-unprecedented-and-unconstitutional

March 27, 2012 at 20:19 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

Red;

You beat me to it. Shocking ther Heritage Foundation isn't out front cheering on the "carbon copy" of their indivudual mandate program. LOL. Racists.

March 27, 2012 at 21:56 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

It would be bad enough if Redbeard’s link to a 2009 Heritage article was merely irrelevant, but it actually proves my point.

I’m not disputing that’s what they say NOW. NOW, we have a President the Right hates with the burning fire of a thousand suns. In the administration of GHW Bush, however, Heritage actually helped draft an individual mandate bill.

Later, the GOP offered two plans to counter Clinton’s plan, the "Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act of 1993" and the "Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1994." Both resembled the one G.H.W. Bush and the Heritage Foundation had written a few years earlier. All three bills included an individual mandate. Senator John Chafee (R-RI) sponsored the first. Sen. Don Nickels (R-OK) proposed the second, with about half the GOP Senate at the time signing on as co-sponsors.

That’s my whole point: Individual mandate was the Right’s idea to begin with. It takes a special brand of cynicism to suddenly find it an Outrageous Affront to Liberty.

March 27, 2012 at 22:36 | Registered CommenterWinston

I don’t care whether you call it racism or just a breathtaking level of cynicism, opportunism and lack of principle. The fact is, the Right supported and even promoted an individual mandate solution to the free rider problem . . . until Obama came around and agreed with them.

Then, suddenly, it became unacceptable. What would YOU call that? Tom mocks it, as if there's some important difference between what Heritage proposed and what Obama signed, but he can't say what the difference is. Because there is none, of any importance.

March 27, 2012 at 22:55 | Registered CommenterWinston

Winston, I'll save you some time. Now you won't have to post anything ever again. Just refer to this super-sized supply of your key "argument" whenever some eveeeel conservative disagrees with our beloved Marxist Quisling president about any matter of policy.

[Ahem]

Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism! Racism!


You're very welcome. Now take your meds, relax, and have a nice lie-down. There's a good boy.

March 28, 2012 at 06:26 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

I firmly disagree with the federal government being involved in the health insurance business, in any way other than by getting the hell out of the way, and by ending restrictions on selling health insurance across state lines. The Constitution gives no power to the federal government that could possibly allow for federal control over our health care, insurance, etc. Therefore, I reject the Heritage plans for revamping Obamacare; it needs to be completely trashed.

But that aside, perhaps it's time for some actual facts about the Heritage input on the matter. Winston and his howling band of lying leftist cretins in media can try to warp the story for all its worth, but they cannot change the facts. Leftists really hate that. "Facts are stubborn things," as John Adams said, "and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/06/dont-blame-heritage-for-obamacare-mandate/

March 28, 2012 at 06:46 | Unregistered CommenterRedBeard

I firmly disagree with the federal government being involved in the health insurance business, in any way other than by getting the hell out of the way, and by ending restrictions on selling health insurance across state lines. The Constitution gives no power to the federal government that could possibly allow for federal control over our health care, insurance, etc. Therefore, I reject the Heritage plans for revamping Obamacare; it needs to be completely trashed.

But that aside, perhaps it's time for some actual facts about the Heritage input on the matter. Winston and his howling band of lying leftist cretins in media can try to warp the story for all its worth, but they cannot change the facts. Leftists really hate that. "Facts are stubborn things," as John Adams said, "and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/06/dont-blame-heritage-for-obamacare-mandate/

March 28, 2012 at 06:46 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

See my post of 17:03.

I certainly get that you think it’s enough to just mock the accusation. But the simple fact is, you’ve had multiple opportunities to offer even a pretext, and you can’t. All you can do is the evidentiary equivalent of sticking out your tongue. I accept your admission.

March 28, 2012 at 07:16 | Registered CommenterWinston

I swear I'm worse than Charlie Brown with Lucy swiping the football out from under him when he goes to kick it. My first inclination on Winston's breathless proclamation/link that the insurance mandate was one 'Heritage drafted" made me think, 'Winston's not talking about that tax credit for health insurance proposal they proposed is he?' Well I clicked on the greatest link in the world or as we all know Winston's "end-all to be all" links and sure enough there it was; "tax credit for health insurance." That stopped me right there. As we KNOW the Heritage 'insurance mandate' has NOTHING in common other than shared words in the title to Obamacare. We all sense what the talking points are now that Obamacare is headed for an embarrassing conclusion is to try and proclaim this individual mandate a Republican idea that we oppose only on racial reasons. That's based on Winston's argument because we vociferously oppose it and claim Obama seems kinda well ya' know incompetent. Libs are really thin skinned.

March 28, 2012 at 07:42 | Unregistered CommenterThomas Miller

Facts are stubborn things indeed, and Stu Butler’s hasty attempt at ass-covering in the face of a wild policy reversal scramble doesn’t so much deal in them as try to bypass them. It’s what’s called in the trade a non-denial denial.

Butler admits Heritage once pushed individual mandates. Then he further admits other conservatives did, too (also true). But, he argues, here’s the difference: Heritage was moved to push mandates out of systemic, not individual concerns (uh, so what?). Then he tries to argue their mandate was intended to be more incentive than requirement (this was actually Obama’s original position, reluctantly given up when it became clear, as Hillary argued, that anything less than a real mandate won’t solve the adverse-selection or free rider problem). Butler’s right—an incentive is not a mandate—but at this point he‘s splitting hairs. Whatever was intended by Heritage “scholars” specifically, the various legislative schemes Republican Senators signed onto in the Nineties most definitely required people to get insurance at (mostly) their own expense.

Butler’s third argument—that in their proposal, people who refused to buy insurance would lose tax breaks, is actually a distinction without any difference at all—because, as everyone who doesn’t depend on wingnut news outlets for their information now knows, the ACA does not require people to purchase insurance. It imposes a tax penalty on them if they don’t.

Whether the ACA is constitutional, the USSC will decide. Its core idea, the mandate, originally came from“conservative” wingnut welfare recipients policy scholars and GOP legislators, who are now frantically trying to rewrite history.

March 28, 2012 at 07:57 | Registered CommenterWinston

As we KNOW the Heritage 'insurance mandate' has NOTHING in common other than shared words in the title to Obamacare.

Tom, exactly what is it about “being required to have insurance or else suffer a tax penalty” that you don’t understand?

Simply saying one thing is different from another does not make it so. What, exactly, is different?

March 28, 2012 at 10:06 | Registered CommenterWinston

Here’s a free clue: if you treat “Some days I wish I was king” as a yawn-worthy expression of normal frustration coming out of George Bush’s mouth, but coming out of President Obama’s as showing troubling totalitarian tendencies (you can’t say why, really), you just might be . . . oh, let’s just say, a “redneck.”

If in 1989-93-94 you hailed individual mandates—that is, using the tax code to force people to insure themselves—as the refreshing introduction into healthcare policy of conservative values of cost control, personal responsibility, and preservation of the private market, but in 2009 they enraged you as Intolerable Assaults on Freedom (you can’t say why, really), you might just be a “redneck.”

You’re welcome, from Winston and his howling band of lying leftist cretins, who are really quite done tolerating the more-implausible-by-the-day protestations this isn’t about race and implacable opposition to anything this elected President does, but about something else, you can’t say what, really.

Have a nice weekend, folks. Back Monday.

March 28, 2012 at 11:03 | Unregistered CommenterWinston

Three Winston posts in a row, with no shouts of RACISM in any of them. I was getting worried. But then, immediately above, he reverts to type, with more posted racial insanity. It's a wonderful thing to be reassured that Winston is not cured, after all. The comfort of consistency, you know.

But now we have to contend with Winston's dogged insistence that the Heritage people speak inerrantly for conservatives, and that we conservatives simply must walk hand-in-hand with Heritage, on all issues, and sub-issues, all the time. Yes folks, there can be NO disagreement. Whatever Heritage says, we must all parrot. If not true, then Winston's flimsy argument about Heritage justifying Obamacare goes right into the toilet.

Oh, but wait... prepare the toilet for action. I distinctly recall posting a message, not very far back in this thread, in which I expressed strong disagreement with Heritage over a critical bit of constitutional theory. How very uppity of me, not to follow the narrow path set down by my betters at the Heritage think tank. But there you have it.

March 28, 2012 at 11:09 | Registered CommenterRedBeard

Winston's dogged insistence that the Heritage people speak inerrantly for conservatives, and that we conservatives simply must walk hand-in-hand with Heritage, on all issues, and sub-issues, all the time. Yes folks, there can be NO disagreement. Whatever Heritage says, we must all parrot. If not true, then Winston's flimsy argument about Heritage justifying Obamacare goes right into the toilet.

Sorry, but that last sentence—the one that follows all the strenuous stuffing of straw?—just doesn’t logically follow. My argument doesn’t stand or fall on whether you or any other conservative ever disagreed with Heritage. It just doesn’t. That’s a straw man argument and easily demolished. I didn’t say anything remotely like that, nor do I need to: my argument doesn’t depend on those absolutes being true. I’m happy to show you why if you like.

But wait, you’ve already got me jumping ahead. One of the few, very few, satisfactions of arguing with people as illogical as wingnuts is all the exercise they give you as they dash from one argument to another. Sometimes their arguments contradict each other. I was looking for some acknowledgement there’s no important difference between the individual mandate Heritage designed (which underpinned legislation Republicans proposed in 1993-94, as well as that signed by Governor Romney) and the mandate at the core of ACA. You seem to be admitting that’s true (otherwise no need arises to distance yourself from Heritage in the first place, much less justify it). Would you clarify, please, whether you’re now acknowledging they’re really the same? Because if there’s any real difference, just say what it is—it’s unnecessary for you to argue it’s OK for conservatives to disagree with Heritage if you don’t.

In other words, you seem to want to argue simultaneously that the mandate Heritage was promoting wasn’t like Obama’s mandate, and so what if it was? You're like the lawyer who argues my client never borrowed your bucket, he returned it to you intact, and that hole was in it when you gave it to him.

March 28, 2012 at 13:56 | Registered CommenterWinston

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>