HCR Temper Tantrums… cont.

I’m going to ask a question I asked another US American friend last night. Are there any adults in the GOP?

FYI: his reply. No, adults aren’t RW loons.

hysteria is going around. this morning I got to watch Morning Hoe become increasingly hysterical as ODonnell, Robinson and Deutch take turns shoving his ridiculous talking points up his ass.
the video doesnt seem to be up yet.
did some memo go out saying this is how to deal with having your bullshit talking points thrown back in your face?
I have spent the last few days during the close of this legislation battling the PUMAs at talk left and they are definitely having panic attacks.

PUMAs, I can call them that here right?

@Capt Howdy: PUMAs, I can call them that here right?

Yes, and those weren’t panic attacks. They were hot flashes.

Also liberated in the Great Exodus: Cankles and Swampsow, although they’ve gotten much less use since ObaMao ™ got sworned in.

A thought on the whole “lawsuit” thing:

Let’s assume that it goes all the way to the Supremes, and they vote the way their corporate masters tell them to. Wouldn’t that just make it *easier* to pass Medicare-for-all? After all, it appears to be (AFAIK) settled law that the government can make people sign up for Medicare.

“sow your legislative fields with salt; because we’re radical, and ruthless and deep-dish.”

Nicely done. You are awarded bonus points!

One day after Obamacare passes and we are already behind on the British – who also voluntarily ceded their empire – in critical force field technology.

an ancient maxim, ‘what starts twisted, ends twisted.‘
Socrates? Plato? Cicero? I need a citation.

@Mistress Cynica: Twizzler?

@Nabisco:
can I call them ignorant bloated festering sows?

@Capt Howdy: As far as I’m concerned, you can use the C-word, but check with the other Vagina-Americans first.

ADD: If you’re ready to get banned, you could end your posts today with “See you Next Tuesday.

@Mistress Cynica:

can I call them . . .

let me think about this

@oyster: I agree that “radical, and ruthless and deep-dish” was exceptional phrasing by Serolf Divad. It describes Stinque to a T.

@redmanlaw:

Slinkyates

Anyone seen the Death Panel judge adverts yet? I’ve been practicing all day. “Ha. Hahaha. Hahahahahahahaha. Sent them to hell!” I’m a shoe-in. Going to get fitted for a hood and stop by the hardware store for a scythe.

@FlyingChainSaw:
link?

@Nabisco: I was never a fan of Cankles, but I never understood the issue with Swampsow. I think Megan was projecting.

@nojo: Oh, mee-OW! I liked them both, but then I was an early proponent of Plugz ™. Just words, as Carlin said.

“the corruption of Springfield”? WTF? What a tool.

Ok, why the fuck is Washington suing the government over this? Fuck you, McKenna, you douchebag.

@IanJ:
it wont work. I wonder if the SC will even hear the case.

@Capt Howdy: I wonder if the SC will even hear the case.

I can count four votes right off the top…

@nojo:
it will be interesting. do you think it has a chance of passing?

I mean do you think the court will interfere with healthcare?
seems like nonsense to me. Obama is a constitutional scholar, right.

@IanJ: Who is that moron? I couldn’t believe when I heard him on NPR that he was our neighbor to the north. Let me guess: he’s from east of the Cascades.

My hunting buddy and I called a truce on HCR politics. I esp. like that he said we can’t let politics affect our friendship. As you guys know, I lost a good friend over his luvluvluv for Rush Limbaugh and his fight on behalf of the oppressed white man. My hunting buddy and I have to bond against our common adversary, the wily Mirriam’s turkey, for the upcoming spring hunt.

My feel good moment of the day.

@Capt Howdy: If it reaches the Supremes, all bets are off.

Obama is a constitutional scholar, right.

Except when it comes to Habeas Corpus.

@nojo:
the legal eagles over at TL say they dont have a case. but then neither did Geroge Bush in 2000

@nojo: rimshot, tips, veal, etc.

@Capt Howdy: Precisely. And Citizens United overturned a century of precedent.

Under normal conditions, no, they don’t have a case. But we’re dealing with a very activist Supreme Court these days.

@nojo: And, as our legal eagles can attest, that’s all they need.

@nojo:
wow
that might make for a long hot summer. dontcha think

@Capt Howdy: Even hotter if the Supremes uphold HCR.

There’s really no way around it: A significant minority of the country thinks the government is illegitimate. And that WND story I linked to in passing this morning shows that they’re already working to delegitimize the fall elections.

Frum’s right about the wingnut blatherers: A satisfied populace is bad for business.

@nojo:
I dont know. I have always thought that when the actual contents of the bill are out there a lot of the stupidity would be disarmed.
on the other hand if they take this back. I can see a pretty big backlash.

but who knows

Wow, somehow I was channeling Harry Reid:

For someone who campaigned on ‘Country First’ and claims to take great pride in bipartisanship, it’s absolutely bizarre for Senator McCain to tell the American people he is going to take his ball and go home until the next election. He must be living in some parallel universe because the fact is, with very few exceptions, we’ve gotten very little cooperation from Senate Republicans in recent years.

But John Amato has the winning zinger:

John McCain should just turn in his paycheck if he’s not going to work, but then again, his wife can support him just fine.

@Capt Howdy:

It’s far more likely to be overturned now that the Court is stacked with middle-aged, half-crazed wingnuts who’re more than willing to overturn decades of precedent in favor of right-wing ideology (see: gun control and campaign finance reform–the end thereof.)

What they’re really suing over is the mandate.

Now I’m 1,000,000% in favor of man-dates (rowwrr), but the requirement to buy insurance from private companies conflicts with state law, such as Virgina’s, which specifies that citizens cannot be forced to buy health insurance from private companies, and possibly also the Constitution, in which there’s a long-running, historic dispute related to the 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause over whether the states or the federal gummit have more control over interstate commerce and which aspects of it.

It largely depends on if the courts determine that the penalty for not buying health insurance is a tax or a fine. If it’s a tax, then A-OK. If it’s a punitive fine, then oh shit.

And Mrs. Uncle Thomas founded her very own chapter of the Tea Klux Klan; that might effect the outcome.

@Capt Howdy: I have always thought that when the actual contents of the bill are out there a lot of the stupidity would be disarmed.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Er, excuse me.

It does change the nature of the news coverage to some degree. But the liars will always find something fresh to lie about. They’ve been completely divorced from reality so far — why start now?

@nojo:
heh
yeah
I guess. the teabaggers will always be there. I suppose my hope was their ranks would be shrinking not growing. but I take your point.

@Original Andrew:
I read on some blog that the penalty was reduced to pretty much nothing.
is that true?

@Capt Howdy:

Who knows? At over 1,000 pages, most of the Congresspukes haven’t even read it. If it is in there, last I heard it was like $675 per year.

Full disclosure: I work with people who work in the “health” and insurance industries, and ironically, the amount of money they get paid makes me physically ill. You can bet they’ve got armies of technical experts working 24 hours a day to exploit every trojan and back door built into this sucker, especially the no-cost-controls, no-public-option, no-Medicare-buy-in.

It’s like hosing down a crowded theatre with gasoline, padlocking the doors, then lighting up a smoke.

@Capt Howdy:

It’s about $100.00 the first year and climbs to about $600.00 after about 5 or 6 years. It’s hardly an undue burden, and when one considers how much the state spends providing medical treatment to the uninsured it should be very easy to justify this as a tax.

I’d be amazed if the Supremes overturned it. I’d also be amazed if the GOP didn’t run their 2010 elections on a platform of repealing just the individual mandate knowing that:

a) it’s unpopular
b) without it, all of HCR will collapse (you can’t prohibit discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions if you allow people not to carry and pay into an insurance pool until the moment they need it).

Man up, crybaby:

“OTTAWA — Firebrand US conservative Ann Coulter has accused a Canadian university provost of ‘hate crimes against conservatives’ and called for a human rights probe of the matter, a local paper said Tuesday.”

@Serolf Divad:
good points all. I was just looking around. this is from volokh.com:

With all this blogging here at the VC about whether the courts will invalidate the individual mandate as exceeding Congress’s Article I authority, I thought I would add my two cents by estimating the odds of that happening. In my view, there is a less than 1% chance that courts will invalidate the individual mandate as exceeding Congress’s Article I power. I tend to doubt the issue will get to the Supreme Court: The circuits will be splitless, I expect, and the Supreme Court will decline to hear the case. In the unlikely event a split arises and the Court does take it, I would expect a 9–0 (or possibly 8–1) vote to uphold the individual mandate.

***

he is sort of a right winger, no?

@Serolf Divad:

A major part of the problem is that it’s so complex that even the people who’re totally for it don’t understand it, forget about explaining it.

The Retardicans are gonna scream “DEATH PANELS COMMUNAZIS” and the Demonrats are gonna say “well, if you look at page 872, paragraph 1,271, subsection 31.5, article F, blah blah blah blah blah blah.

As purely political theatre, it’ll be far easier for the Retards to make their case.

@redmanlaw: We’ll need Manchu for a ruling, but even Greenwald thinks the Canadian hate-language laws are a bit over-the-top.

/Schadenfreude, Piling On TJ/

What happens when you filter out all of the psychotic teabaggers on the anti-reform side? You get this. Hee hee!

@nojo:
the one guy looks like he is checking his email

@nojo:
not an authority but having lived there for two years I would agree. they have a history of this stuff also. I was shocked to learn that as recently as the 70s some movies were banned in Toronto. (true Manchu?)
loved lots of stuff about canada. not all.

@nojo:
Canada Hate Crimes Laws as viewed by non lawyer simpleton (me)

Thanks to Charter of Rights:
Hate against an individual = impolite, but sort of okay as long as it’s not libel
Hate against a group = no go.

Quebec kicked Howard Stern off the air because he shit on various GROUPs not individuals. Also kicked off a local French DJ for the same reason.

The problem is that Mann likes to paint with a broad brush (ie: groups) and she can’t abide by that. Basically her speech would have been: “Hi my name is Mann Coulter. Thanks.”

@nojo: Speaking of … she posted something yesterday on Jezabel shitting all over Pelosi for actually getting things done.

@redmanlaw:

Shorter Ann Coulter: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD PAY ATTENTION TO ME FOR SOMETHING, ANYTHING AT ALL!

@flippin eck: You can see the hatred in Pence’s eyes …

@Original Andrew and legal eagles: If you can’t be forced to buy insurance from private insurers, why is it that every state in which I’ve ever been licensed to drive has been able to require me to carry auto liability insurance that is only available from private insurers? Why should health insurance be different?
Also, I don’t see the insurance companies bankrolling that particular battle.
The NY Times has an interactive feature that gives the amount of the penalty ($95 first year for low-end earners, increasing annually).

@TJ/ Jamie Sommers /TJ:
I have to say I am impressed with Nancy in all this.

@Capt Howdy: I’d call him conservative but not a right winger (a term I associate with a near complete lack of logic).

@Mistress Cynica:
as I understand it that is state law and this is federal. anyway that is their argument isnt it?

and I think there are states where you are not required to do that.
right?

@Capt Howdy:
Canada City history is filled with sad sagas of abused groups/races/etc whether it be:
Irish
Ukranians
Mennonites (!)
Germans
Poles
Italians
Chinese
Japanese
Jews (as per the usual for a WASPy nation)
Natives (still on going especially out West)

Sad/embarrassing trivial fact: Our system of reservations was the basis of South Africa Apartheid.

Our laws reflect our history.

@Mistress Cynica: I think the argument is that the US Const is different in that it gives powers not specifically taken w/in to the states. Amend 10, if you will. That’s why the wingers keep saying that there is no specific language in the Const that gives Congress permission to provide health care or insurance.

@Capt Howdy: Somewhere I saw her referred to as “LBJ in a skirt,” which evoked a mental image I’m still trying to erase.

@ManchuCandidate:
well
at least they are struggling with it. unlike us who just tosses them all into the deep end of the pool.

@Mistress Cynica:
I saw a quote somewhere that went something like “the difference between Tip ONeil and Nancy is that she is much fucking tougher”

@Mistress Cynica: I’m going to play the federal/state distinction (as others have mentioned), and also dredge up my original complaint: Car (and flood-insurance) laws are required a condition of something else — driving, say, or owning a home in a flood plain. The HCR requirement is a condition of living.

@Capt Howdy:
This is why our talk radio is so… polite.

Someone thought about bringing Rush up here until they realized that he would never survive more than one day because he rags on groups. They even had a hard time keeping Dr Laura on the air. Only US talk show that ever made it here was Dr Ruth.

The problem was that in our history, our idiots were just as bad as yours were. Inciting violence against various groups with mobs of yobs was pretty common till the 60s. Things changed though.

Compared to the free wheeling US “Freedom of Speech”, our speech never protected incitements to violence and hatred which is why our speech isn’t so free. Aside from a few Neo Nazis, contarded Cannucks who wannabe yanks and ethnics who forget they’re in Canada (mostly former Yugos) there aren’t too many complaints.