| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I mean, can you imagine what Congress would be like if they had the power to force judges to recuse themselves from specific cases? One hopes that by being accepted by enough of Congress, they're considered acceptably unbiased and, from there, are permitted to use their own judgment...
I think you would need to go to the "architect" of the ACA, Elizabeth Folwer. She bounced back and forth between working as a lobbyist for the nations largest health insurance company, Wellpoint, and working as counsel for the head of the committee that drafted the ACA.
[High fives Comrade Fergie]
I glanced at the page before I had to leave for work and as I was driving I thought, gotta make a post about Elizabeth Fowler when I get back home.
Love having you on the team, Ferg.
Edit: Although with Scalia dead and having no one else to copy answers from, Thomas might as well recluse himself.
Tangentially, something I didn't know until recently:
The Real Reason Clarence Thomas Rarely Speaks
Thomas' first language wasn't English. It was Gullah. And what he learned as a child had a life-long impact.
Why? Because he signed it? That, besides being it's advocate is his only actual involvement in it. The name "Obamacare" is still in the main, one used only by news commentators, and Republicans who want to destroy it. For awhile it also went by Rommneycare as it's essentially identical to the system Mitch Romney put in when he was Governer.
I don't know how it is in the rest of the country, but those of us in or working in Massachusetts, Republican or not, refer to the state system that mandates that we buy insurance from greedy scumbag pharmacapitalists as "Romneycare" and the national system that mandates that we buy insurance from greedy scumbag pharmacapitalists as "Obamacare".
Part of my move to New Hampshire was to escape the former; by the time they passed the latter, I was working at UPS and getting my insurance for free.
U-nion! U-nion! U-nion!
|
And what's the name of the bill?Nicknames aren't the same as actual names. The ACA does not have his name on it. Go check, I'll wait.Dude, I checked.
You clearly don't understand humor.
You assumed I meant "Obama-care" when saying he has his name on the bill. When you were a dick about it being called the Affordable Care Act, I pointed out that his name is literally signed on the bill. Have some class and admit when you are wrong, and being wrong-headed.
Then drop the whole discussion, since that was the only point for the "his name on it" digression anyway.I agree, his name is on the signature of the bill. We don't call every bill over the past 8 years "Obama[bill specific reference]"
I'm really done with the recusal discussion. It's a hypothetical on a hypothetical.
Really man? I'm saying I'm bowing out. You can declare yourself the winner of that little sub-thread, I don't give a s*+*. It's a hypothetical, based on an unlikely hypothetical. I hit my tolerance level on it and now I want to move on. If you have more to say on it, please reply to someone else.
I wish I'd never brought up the "Obama for SCotUS" derail. Ugh, I'm Zemo in Civil War.
Eh, 40 pages in, there will be derails.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In one of the less-common ways of checking things, apparently Trump is losing in every state where he has a branded golf course.
And what's the name of the bill?Nicknames aren't the same as actual names. The ACA does not have his name on it. Go check, I'll wait.Dude, I checked.You clearly don't understand humor.
You assumed I meant "Obama-care" when saying he has his name on the bill. When you were a dick about it being called the Affordable Care Act, I pointed out that his name is literally signed on the bill. Have some class and admit when you are wrong, and being wrong-headed.
Did you not see that I favorited your post?
But hey, thanks for calling me a dick. I'd prefer we keep this civil and not resort to name calling. Is that something you think you can do?
So, how much effort do you think Congress(ional aides) spend on making names that fit to thematically appropriate acronyms?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, how much effort do you think Congress(ional aides) spend on making names that fit to thematically appropriate acronyms?Operation Iraqi Liberation
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[High fives Comrade Fergie]
[Clenched Fist Salute]
Thanks Anklebiter!Happy Labor Day to one and all!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Return America to Class, Integrity , Strength, and Tradition
|
|
And what's the name of the bill?Nicknames aren't the same as actual names. The ACA does not have his name on it. Go check, I'll wait.Dude, I checked.You clearly don't understand humor.
You assumed I meant "Obama-care" when saying he has his name on the bill. When you were a dick about it being called the Affordable Care Act, I pointed out that his name is literally signed on the bill. Have some class and admit when you are wrong, and being wrong-headed.
Did you not see that I favorited your post?
But hey, thanks for calling me a dick. I'd prefer we keep this civil and not resort to name calling. Is that something you think you can do?
Look, I'm sorry I let it get away from me. But, can you be less confrontational when calling for a truce?
I wish I'd never brought up the "Obama for SCotUS" derail. Ugh, I'm Zemo in Civil War.
Which makes me Thor! :D
Tri,
Well a) I'm neutral in this conflict and b) I figure if someone is Iron Man (I assume Anklebiter), and someone is Captain America (thejeff), that leaves some roster left.
Plus yes, I like to think I'm Marvel Thor. :p :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No need to be so Thor about it, though.
*hangs his head* Sorry...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Former President Bill Clinton on Trump going down to Mexico and being nice, and then coming back up and immediately being aggressive to them:
"I’ve had that job. That damaged America and every serious country in the world. You cannot be the leader of a country, go down and be nice to people and then come home and dump on them for your own political benefit."
and
"If you got a beef with somebody, you go to them, look them in the eye, and in a respectful way, you can say, ‘I disagree,’. And then you come home and equally respectfully say, 'This is what I said.'"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its funny. I have yet to see anyone argue, positively, why donald trump should be president. It's always Hillary's bad, therefore trump.
Do'h Toz...
Which makes me Thor! :D
Tell Darryl & Mew-Mew I said "Hi."
Pillbug,
Which Darryl?
Pillbug,
Which Darryl?
Oh him. Yeah I well I would...but he kicked me out after July. I'm currently homeless.
You mean this case?
From AP article: "The timing of the donation by Trump is notable because the now presumptive Republican presidential nominee has said he expects and receives favors from politicians to whom he gives money.
"When I want something I get it," Trump said at an Iowa rally in January. "When I call, they kiss my ass. It's true."
Normally, the "It's true" part would be a red flag, but does anyone think he is lying about this? Do they think he gives out of the goodness of his heart?
I don't give Trump much credit, but he has been refreshingly open about how political donations/favors work. Hillary attending his third wedding only makes sense if you take political contributions into account.
Nicely done. It's very clever to take a story about an obvious bribery case from one candidate and spin it into a smear on his opponent.
You are welcome to offer a good reason Hillary attended Trumps wedding. I have yet to hear one.
I don't see anything different in the article then what Hillary has done for people who gave her/or her foundation money. "It's just a random coincidence", could be applied to virtually any case where someone gives money, then gets what they want. It's all obvious bribery. The only difference- one is represented by a little elephant symbol, the other a donkey.Either campaign/foundation donations affect policy (a logical conclusion), or they don't. Complaining when one side does it, but handwaving the same behavior on the other side seems... illogical to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder when you all are going to merge this into Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread.
I wonder when you all are going to merge this into Comrade Anklebiter's Fun-Timey Revolutionary Socialism Thread.
You are welcome to offer any insightful Conservative points you wish. (Or offer a reason that Conservative politics seems totally absent from presidential politics.) Since John McLaughlin (Bye-byyeee) passed away, I have been missing hearing some occasionally interesting points from Conservatives.
I resigned myself a good time ago now from speaking politics in my life. Better that way, don't have a whole class of people angry at me. Really, why should I? I've seen how some of you have talked of my beliefs. On top of that, it is like one on twenty in this thread, Hell no, had enough of that kind of crap in public school.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. I mean, can you imagine what Congress would be like if they had the power to force judges to recuse themselves from specific cases? One hopes that by being accepted by enough of Congress, they're considered acceptably unbiased and, from there, are permitted to use their own judgment...
So I take it, the concept of an independent Supreme Court doesn't sit well with you then? Because basically what you want is for them to be subservient to whatever faction holds the majority of Congress, in this case, the Republican Party.
...I'm not sure how you got to the opposite of what I was saying. That's probably my fault for not being clear enough, and if so, I apologize.
I do like the idea of an independent Supreme Court. I don't think the constitutionality of laws should be a partisan issue, or one that partisan politics is capable of materially affecting.
*Nods*
And that's why I think the 60-vote threshold for confirmation is a good thing. It's a lot harder to reach than a simple majority vote, so generally, judges that reach it are more likely to be acceptable to people with a wide range of views. That helps encourage balanced views, rather than extreme ones. It doesn't work perfectly, but perfection is hard when people are involved...
...I'm not sure how you got to the opposite of what I was saying. That's probably my fault for not being clear enough, and if so, I apologize.
I do like the idea of an independent Supreme Court. I don't think the constitutionality of laws should be a partisan issue, or one that partisan politics is capable of materially affecting.
Do you understand that by it's nature, the term partisan politics is redundant? Any issue of significance is going to have strong opinions on it, which makes it poltical AND partisan. That's no more avoidable than the mathematical consequence of adding two and two.
This is true, but "strong opinions" doesn't necessarily mean "clashing opinions". Sometimes, politicians actually do agree on things. XD By partisan politics, I was referring primarily to issues where two major power groups are directly and significantly opposed to each other.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*Nods*
And that's why I think the 60-vote threshold for confirmation is a good thing. It's a lot harder to reach than a simple majority vote, so generally, judges that reach it are more likely to be acceptable to people with a wide range of views. That helps encourage balanced views, rather than extreme ones. It doesn't work perfectly, but perfection is hard when people are involved...
You're not getting the current issue. The problem is not the vote, but that the Senate committee in charge of approvals has flat out stated, that they will not forward a candidate FOR a vote PERIOD, possibly not until a Republican wins the Presidential election.