Support NeoGAF

[Aaron Strife]

Dax posted this on the twitter thingy..

http://blog.ctnews.com/politics/2015/01/07/jeb-bush-takes-swipe-at-hillary/



God, this is gonna be good!

If he gets the nom and tries that line, I hope she's ready with a response about him pushing the same idiotic policies as his brother..

What's he going to counter with? '00s nostalgia?

 

[HylianTom]

What's he going to counter with? '00s nostalgia?

The funny thing.. by making this a talking point, he's pretty much conceding that, yep, the 1990s were pretty dang awesome.

What'll also be really funny is watching him say, "I'm not my brother" before he proceeds to advocate incredibly similar positions & views. If the Democrats have any campaign competence whatsoever {*cough*}, they're going to have researchers combing through old George W footage so that their commercials will have a reel of Jeb saying "Policy Position #8297" and then Dubya saying the exact same thing.

 

[ivysaur12]

Shumlin reelected governor.

 

[HylianTom]

Tomorrow is a biggie: SCOTUS conference to consider hearing several marriage cases.

I sense on conservative blogs a layer of denial that still exists on whether there's a fifth vote. Once a ruling actually arrives, I expect fireworks from the base, including demands of purity on this position. This issue will be a gift that keeps on giving.

 

[HylianTom]

Link? I'd love to see it. It's quite likely it'll be 6-3 or even 7-2 at this point. Everyone knows this.

Ahh.. No specific links. Just lurking comments at Newsmax and the like. Not all of them are in denial, but there's a definite "hope-against-hope" type of thing going-on..

(Even the fact that they criticize politicians for not appealing some of these decisions tells me they're still not accepting that they'll lose this fight)

 

[jamesinclair]

Can Jerry Brown be senator, governor and president at the same time?

 

[Black Mamba]

So no one mentioned Walker's Gruber-like moment discovered regarding the ACA?

He said in an interview the federal and state exchanges are identical, thus implying no incentives being given for running it yourself. In fact, he says that's why he opted out of a state-run exchange!

This brings us back to Arlington v Murphy where the Court said they have to look at whether the state officials believe there is an incentive. And Walker admitted in 2013 that he didn't see one in the law!

whoops. Where's megasaurius!?

 

[Figments]

Please run, John Chiang. I'm sick of all of CA's biggest politicians being from Northern California.

Ew.

Filthy Northerners.

 

[Metaphoreus]

So no one mentioned Walker's Gruber-like moment discovered regarding the ACA?

He said in an interview the federal and state exchanges are identical, thus implying no incentives being given for running it yourself. In fact, he says that's why he opted out of a state-run exchange!

This brings us back to Arlington v Murphy where the Court said they have to look at whether the state officials believe there is an incentive. And Walker admitted in 2013 that he didn't see one in the law!

whoops. Where's megasaurius!?

Oh, good. I was hoping someone would bring this up. For reference, here's the ThinkProgress article that brought Walker's comments to light. (The fact that the article originated at ThinkProgress should have been a red flag counseling against taking it seriously, but what can you do? This is what liberals have been reduced to.)

Here is ThinkProgress's transcription of Walker's comments:

When I looked — and I spent nearly two years looking at this . . . I visited [Washington DC], as a new governor in December in 2010. As part of that visit I met with Secretary Sebelius, the head of the federal department of HHS, and have spent the last two years with my team, my administration, my cabinet, working with the federal government trying to fully understand and comprehend what it meant to my state and other states. And it was clear! It’s a SINO, “state in name only.”

This really isn’t an exchange that the states run or even run in a partnership. The federal government determines what’s going to be covered. How it’s going to be covered. And the only distinction is whether or not a state can say that they’re running it, put up a sign that says they are running it. But, in the end, there’s no real substantive difference between a federal exchange, or a state exchange, or the in between, the hybrid, the partnership. And so I said, if I can’t run it, if I don’t have control over it, why would I take the responsibility of explaining to people something that I don’t have any control over.

ThinkProgress uses Walker's comment to bolster two points: first, it says that Walker's experience shows that the statute is ambiguous on the question of whether credits are available on federal exchanges, and so the IRS rule must stand. Second, it says that Walker's experience shows that the federal government's condition on the availability of credits was not clear enough for the condition to be constitutional. I'll address both points.

First, does Walker's comment show that the statute is ambiguous? We have no reason to think so. Walker isn't talking about the ACA in a vacuum. He admits that his review of the statute and the rules regarding exchanges was informed by his interactions with the administration. The administration would have told Walker that credits would be available on a state-established or a federally established exchange. At worst, Walker's comment shows that he accepted the administration's position regarding credits on the federal exchanges--we have no reason to think he independently arrived at the same conclusion.

(As an aside, when you read the bolded sentence in the context of Walker's comment, it appears that Walker is discussing "substantive difference" relating to control of the exchange and insurance policies offered through it. You might think that, even accepting such a narrow interpretation, it stands to reason that Walker would have taken the opportunity to explain that there is, actually, a substantive difference between exchanges with respect to credits. But I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion: Walker's comment is a defense of his refusal to establish an exchange, so pointing out why that might be detrimental wouldn't have made sense.)

What of ThinkProgress's second argument? ThinkProgress is relying on cases discussing Congress' spending power. Congress exercises its spending power when it offers money to the states, so long as the states accept certain conditions. But that's not what's happening here. Here, the government is offering tax credits directly to taxpayers, no doubt as an exercise of its taxing power. It seems to me that ThinkProgress simply misunderstands the law applicable to this type of transaction. However, I haven't looked too deeply into this, and would welcome any helpful commentary from others.

Finally, let me note my amusement at the sudden endorsement by liberals of Governor Walker's policy expertise. Given Walker's sudden rise to expert status despite his low educational attainment, I can see how Dr. Gruber's MIT professorship really pays for itself.

 

[Black Mamba]

Oh, good. I was hoping someone would bring this up. For reference, here's the ThinkProgress article that brought Walker's comments to light. (The fact that the article originated at ThinkProgress should have been a red flag counseling against taking it seriously, but what can you do? This is what liberals have been reduced to.)

Here is ThinkProgress's transcription of Walker's comments:



ThinkProgress uses Walker's comment to bolster two points: first, it says that Walker's experience shows that the statute is ambiguous on the question of whether credits are available on federal exchanges, and so the IRS rule must stand. Second, it says that Walker's experience shows that the federal government's condition on the availability of credits was not clear enough for the condition to be constitutional. I'll address both points.

First, does Walker's comment show that the statute is ambiguous? We have no reason to think so. Walker isn't talking about the ACA in a vacuum. He admits that his review of the statute and the rules regarding exchanges was informed by his interactions with the administration. The administration would have told Walker that credits would be available on a state-established or a federally established exchange. At worst, Walker's comment shows that he accepted the administration's position regarding credits on the federal exchanges--we have no reason to think he independently arrived at the same conclusion.

(As an aside, when you read the bolded sentence in the context of Walker's comment, it appears that Walker is discussing "substantive difference" relating to control of the exchange and insurance policies offered through it. You might think that, even accepting such a narrow interpretation, it stands to reason that Walker would have taken the opportunity to explain that there is, actually, a substantive difference between exchanges with respect to credits. But I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion: Walker's comment is a defense of his refusal to establish an exchange, so pointing out why that might be detrimental wouldn't have made sense.)

What of ThinkProgress's second argument? ThinkProgress is relying on cases discussing Congress' spending power. Congress exercises its spending power when it offers money to the states, so long as the states accept certain conditions. But that's not what's happening here. Here, the government is offering tax credits directly to taxpayers, no doubt as an exercise of its taxing power. It seems to me that ThinkProgress simply misunderstands the law applicable to this type of transaction. However, I haven't looked too deeply into this, and would welcome any helpful commentary from others.

Finally, let me note my amusement at the sudden endorsement by liberals of Governor Walker's policy expertise. Given Walker's sudden rise to expert status despite his low educational attainment, I can see how Dr. Gruber's MIT professorship really pays for itself.

At worst, Walker's comment shows that he accepted the administration's position regarding credits on the federal exchanges--we have no reason to think he independently arrived at the same conclusion.

This statement literally undoes all your arguments, as I previously mentioned the argument why. The SCOTUS ruled previously state officials interpretations matter when it comes to incentives and you admit that "at worst" Walker accepted the interpretation the Obama admin gave him regarding credits. Whether he came to that conclusion independently or not is irrelevant. It's the interpretation he accepted and went with and therefore demonstrates how wrong the King argument is right now.

If the states didn't believe their taxpayers would lose the subsidies because there was no such incentive in the law for creating a state-run exchange, then they get the subsidies if the Executive Branch agrees, Period. End of Case. And Walker literally admits, according to your admission, this was the interpretation he accepted.

Funny, Gruber has no bearing on the case, in reality. He's just one man who worked a bit on the law. Walker, on the other hand, is a state official interpreting the law and his opinion does in fact matter.

 

[Metaphoreus]

This statement literally undoes all your arguments, as I previously mentioned the argument why. The SCOTUS ruled previously state officials interpretations matter when it comes to incentives and you admit that "at worst" Walker accepted the interpretation the Obama admin gave him regarding credits. Whether he came to that conclusion independently or not is irrelevant. It's the interpretation he accepted and went with and therefore demonstrates how wrong the King argument is right now.

If the states didn't believe their taxpayers would lose the subsidies because there was no such incentive in the law for creating a state-run exchange, then they get the subsidies if the Executive Branch agrees, Period. End of Case. And Walker literally admits, according to your admission, this was the interpretation he accepted.

Funny, Gruber has no bearing on the case, in reality. He's just one man who worked a bit on the law. Walker, on the other hand, is a state official interpreting the law and his opinion does in fact matter.

Whether a condition is clearly stated is relevant when Congress is acting pursuant to its spending power, offering money to the states with strings attached. Like I said, I don't think that's the case here, so the argument you previously mentioned isn't even applicable.

Whether Walker arrived at his conclusion independent of any input from the administration is relevant to whether the statute is ambiguous (though, again, the best evidence on that point is the text of the statute itself). If he's just regurgitating White House talking points about the law, or accepts the validity of the IRS rule by default, then his conclusion that there is no substantive difference between state-established and federally established exchanges--assuming that conclusion relates at all to the availability of credits, which I question--isn't all that helpful.

In the end, this is just another desperate attempt by those who oppose the King challenge to point to something, anything other than the law itself to sustain the IRS rule.

 

[eBay Huckster]

"desperate attempts" is a pretty rich statement given that King itself exists on the basis of a political party desperately trying to deny one man a policy accomplishment at any and all costs

(that the case was granted cert is ultimately irrelevant to the facts of its origin. we aren't having this discussion if the GOP isn't scared shitless of the political implications of the ACA actually working)

 

[Metaphoreus]

"desperate attempts" is a pretty rich statement given that King itself exists on the basis of a political party desperately trying to deny one man a policy accomplishment at any and all costs

(that the case was granted cert is ultimately irrelevant to the facts of its origin. we aren't having this discussion if the GOP isn't scared shitless of the political implications of the ACA actually working)

I'd take this comment more seriously (thought not much more) if King actually involved the Republican Party.

 

[Black Mamba]

Whether a condition is clearly stated is relevant when Congress is acting pursuant to its spending power, offering money to the states with strings attached. Like I said, I don't think that's the case here, so the argument you previously mentioned isn't even applicable.

But the argument given by King's advocates is that a condition was clearly stated. That' it's it's taxing power and not spending power makes no substantive difference to the relationship of states vs fed power. Furthermore, Congress did give money to states to set up the exchanges, so there's that too. But that's neither here nor there.

It's pretty ridiculous to believe that the SCOTUS arguments regarding Congress' spending power and incentives won't also relate to its arguments regarding taxing power. You're just pretending to be naive, here.

If Congress said "raise the drinking age to 21 or we won't allow mortgage deduction tax claims in your state," the SCOTUS would have also slapped that down in Dole, too.

Whether Walker arrived at his conclusion independent of any input from the administration is relevant to whether the statute is ambiguous (though, again, the best evidence on that point is the text of the statute itself). If he's just regurgitating White House talking points about the law, or accepts the validity of the IRS rule by default, then his conclusion that there is no substantive difference between state-established and federally established exchanges--assuming that conclusion relates at all to the availability of credits, which I question--isn't all that helpful.

Nope. "States cannot knowingly accept conditions of which they are "unaware" or which they are "unable to ascertain."

You're trying to make an argument that Walker's interpretation being non-independent makes his interpretation irrelevant but the SCOTUS has already refused that argument. If the Obama Admin convinced Walker that the state and federally run exchanges are identical in all functions, then that's the only interpretation that matters because, again, they cannot accept what they are unaware of!

The statute becomes unambiguous once Walker accepts the Obama admin's interpretation! SCOTUS has said as much!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arlington_Central_School_District_Board_of_Education_v._Murphy

In the end, this is just another desperate attempt by those who oppose the King challenge to point to something, anything other than the law itself to sustain the IRS rule.

It's hilarious to see you call it "desperate" when some conservative judges laughed the King argument out of court. Even insulted it in their Opinions. But we're the "desperate" ones.

Like, you think for even a second that I believe that you believe the law was written to make the federally run exchanges not have tax credits? You don't believe that no matter how much you try to convince people here.

You're like McConnell trying to claim the 2nd and 3rd quarter GDP reports are due to the GOP winning the election. Nothing more than trolling.

I'd take this comment more seriously (thought not much more) if King actually involved the Republican Party.

lol @ you being all sly, trying to argue technicalities on this one.

 

[eBay Huckster]

I'd take this comment more seriously

You don't need to - it's about as serious as the contention of "desperation" applying to anyone but the side of the plaintiffs in these cases.

if King actually involved the Republican Party.

So, just to name one issue here: you're saying no amici curae were filed by and/or on the behalf of members of the Republican Party?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Sad to see both sides participate in petty parsing of language to create ridiculous legal arguments. No wonder people think both parties are the same.

 

[ivysaur12]

I'd take this comment more seriously (thought not much more) if King actually involved the Republican Party.

Haaaaaaaaaaa

 

[ivysaur12]

damn you Voldemort!

I lol'ed.

 

[Jack Remington]

So no one mentioned Walker's Gruber-like moment discovered regarding the ACA?

He said in an interview the federal and state exchanges are identical, thus implying no incentives being given for running it yourself. In fact, he says that's why he opted out of a state-run exchange!

This brings us back to Arlington v Murphy where the Court said they have to look at whether the state officials believe there is an incentive. And Walker admitted in 2013 that he didn't see one in the law!

whoops. Where's megasaurius!?

I've been saying this forever. The whole thing is a troll suit to begin with, but the idea that Congress wrote a bill intending to create a federal exchange that couldn't legally distribute subsidies has always been rooted in willful self-deception. It's a lie these scumbags choose to repeat to avoid any moral culpability for the potential outcome of the suit.

You're just pretending to be naive, here.

This too. They all do this. It's a lot easier to say, "Aw shucks, I just want to see the law carried out as written," instead of, "I want this law crippled by any means necessary."

 

[benjipwns]

Sad to see both sides participate in petty parsing of language to create ridiculous legal arguments. No wonder people think both parties are the same.

What are you trying to do? Eliminate the legal profession?

 

[Jack Remington]

Sad to see both sides participate in petty parsing of language to create ridiculous legal arguments. No wonder people think both parties are the same.

What exactly is petty about the legal arguments in favor of the IRS' stance?

"Pettiness" describes the Halbig/King plaintiffs pretty well, but I don't see anything petty in the government's position. Can you elaborate?

 

[benjipwns]

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-new-world-order/
Larry Sabato ranks the tiers of 2016 GOPers

Bob Ehrlich
Ex-Governor, MD

Strengths
•**Crickets**
— e-mail us if you can think of one

Meanwhile, in Senators from both parties news:

While discussing the ramifications of Wednesday’s terrorist attack at satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo‘s office in Paris, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said President Barack Obama‘s policies and campaign promises are “getting a lot of people killed” because he refuses to acknowledge that the France attacks and others are motivated by religion.

“The people who are attacking us and attacking France are motivated by religious teachings that say there’s no place on the planet for anybody that disagrees with them,” Graham said on Fox News Thursday morning, adding that Obama is “undercutting” other foreign leaders by not acknowledging that it is a religious war. “I think he believes that strength is offensive, that he doesn’t want to be bold because he may offend somebody — it’s not offensive to say that these are religious fanatics that don’t represent Islam, that have to be dealt with, they have to be killed or captured.”

After Graham charged that Obama’s policies are making Americans “less safe,” host Martha MacCallum pressed him on specifics. He said the president’s refusal to hold captured terrorists as “enemy combatants” prevents counterterrorism officials from extracting intelligence.

He concluded by saying that because of President Obama’s policies, “it’s just a matter of time” before America is attacked at home if an adjustment is not made. Graham expressed similar views on Wednesday when he told CNN’s Dana Bash that journalists are “soft targets” in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said Thursday he was disappointed that the White House threatened to veto his legislation approving the Keystone XL pipeline, arguing the president’s move was “not the way a democracy works.”

The West Virginia lawmaker said he was upset Obama did not reserve judgment on the bill until it went through the committee and amendment process in an interview with Fox News’s “America’s Newsroom.”

“I just couldn't believe that out of the gate, two hours after [Sen.] John Hoeven [R-N.D.] and I announced that were introducing the bill, that they would come out from the White House and the president would make a statement that he's going to veto it,” Manchin said.
The Democrat said he had been hopeful the president’s history serving in the Senate would have led him to hold off on a veto threat.

“I would have thought the president would say, ‘Listen, being a former legislator, I'm going to wait until this process unfolds. And at the end of the day, I'll tell you, do I like what they came up with, or do I not like what they came out with, and this is my reason for veto,’ ” Manchin said. “[He] never even gave it a chance, never even gave it a chance. Now, that's just not the way you do legislation. It's not the way a democracy works. And it's not the way the ... three branches of government should work.”

 

[benjipwns]

Speaker of the House John Boehner defended his conservative bona fides Thursday, arguing during a press conference that it “pains” him to be described as a “squish” by members of his own party

...

“And I tell you what pains me the most is when they describe me as the establishment,” Boehner continued. “Now, I’m the most anti-establishment speaker we’ve ever had.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbN3XlRX8B8

 

[HylianTom]

So.. several of us have predicted that even with a SCOTUS ruling, the whole gay marriage thing wouldn't go away. Texas is already preparing for this June..

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/08/no-salaries-for-recognizing-gay-marriage-bill-says/

Bill Looks to Prevent Gay Marriage From Becoming Legal

State or local government employees giving out same-sex marriage licenses would stop receiving their salaries under a bill filed Wednesday for the 84th legislative session.

Titled the “Preservation of Sovereignty and Marriage Act,” House Bill 623 would prevent same-sex marriage from becoming legal in Texas. In 2005, voters backed a proposition defining marriage in the Texas Constitution as “solely the union of one man and one woman.” A San Antonio federal judge last year found the state's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional but immediately issued a stay on his ruling. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in the case on Friday.

State Rep. Cecil Bell, R-Magnolia, said he filed HB 623 to prevent any federal court or federal action from allowing gay marriage in Texas.

...

His bill says taxes or public funds can’t be used to issue same-sex marriage licenses or be used to enforce a court order to recognize same-sex marriage.

The bill also requires state courts to dismiss legal actions that challenge a provision of the bill and award legal costs and attorney fees to the defendants. Citing the 11th Amendment, which gives states sovereign immunity, the bill also says the state isn’t subject to a lawsuit for complying with the act — regardless of a contradictory federal ruling.

Pretty shitty of them to try such a thing. But not surprising.

 

[ivysaur12]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbN3XlRX8B8

Punk isn't dead!!

So.. several of us have predicted that even with a SCOTUS ruling, the whole gay marriage thing wouldn't go away. Texas is already preparing for this June..

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/08/no-salaries-for-recognizing-gay-marriage-bill-says/



Pretty shitty of them to try such a thing. But not surprising.

lololol

Good luck with that.

 

[HylianTom]

lololol

Good luck with that.

If the law passes (wouldn't surprise me if it did), I feel sorry for folks in Texas who won't be able to get married on the day of the ruling. They'd possibly have to once again wait through another legal process, knocking down this new law. In a case like this where it's obvious that the intent is to circumvent the Constitution, I'd like to see plaintiffs go for real retribution in court.

 

[Mike M]

Pretty shitty of them to try such a thing. But not surprising.

No, I think the lengths this goes to is pretty surprising. Passing a law that includes a provision instructing courts to dismiss cases against the very same law and penalize the plaintiff would be pretty fucking gonzo.

 

[benjipwns]

I was going to question this bill but then I saw the guy who introduced it and think it's airtight:

 

[jamesinclair]

Wait, you can pass a law that makes it illegal to challenge the law in court?

 

[B-Dubs]

Wait, you can pass a law that makes it illegal to challenge the law in court?

No, this law will be struck down the second it goes before a judge.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Wait, you can pass a law that makes it illegal to challenge the law in court?

Not even a little bit.

Except...

*clapclap*
DEEP IN THE HEEEEART, OF TEXAS!

 

[gcubed]

No, this law will be struck down the second it goes before a judge.

Would it even get to a judges desk? Im sure some clerk somewhere has an "lol" stamp for these things

 

[Poodlestrike]

Would it even get to a judges desk? Im sure some clerk somewhere has an "lol" stamp for these things

I'm reminded of Ex-PFC Wintergreen.

 

[B-Dubs]

I'm reminded of Ex-PFC Wintergreen.

The most powerful man in the theater. Don't forget Milo, who turned his position as Mess Officer into a black market syndicate that did business with the Allies and Nazis.

 

[Poodlestrike]

The most powerful man in the theater. Don't forget Milo, who turned his position as Mess Officer into a black market syndicate that did business with the Allies and Nazis.

And Major Major Major Major, who doesn't fit the theme but has an excellent name that bears repeating.

 

[B-Dubs]

And Major Major Major Major, who doesn't fit the theme but has an excellent name that bears repeating.

I love Major Major Major Major's chapter, his dad was the definition of a troll. That chapter and the one where Captain Black forces the men to constantly pledge their loyalty, but doesn't allow Major Major to, are probably the funniest chapters in the book. Also anything concerning Milo is hilarious as well, oh Nately's whore too! Really it's just the whole book is amazing.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I love Major Major Major Major's chapter, his dad was the definition of a troll. That chapter and the one where Captain Black forces the men to constantly pledge their loyalty, but doesn't allow Major Major to, are probably the funniest chapters in the book. Also anything concerning Milo is hilarious as well, oh Nately's whore too! Really it's just the whole book is amazing.

It really is. I bounced off it for years, but a few months ago I picked it up again and this time it just clicked.

 

[B-Dubs]

It really is. I bounced off it for years, but a few months ago I picked it up again and this time it just clicked.

The movie isn't too bad either, not as good as the book but still good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9wcK6qvCqI

 

[Poodlestrike]

The movie isn't too bad either, not as good as the book but still good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9wcK6qvCqI

I'd very much like to kill you, but I don't have the time right now!

Gold.

 

[ivysaur12]

I was going to question this bill but then I saw the guy who introduced it and think it's airtight:

He looks like he knows what he's doing!!

I would honestly be surprised if this passed, even in Texas. There's only a 5 vote difference between the Ds and Rs (admittedly, out of 31 seats) in their Senate, and it's usually the slightly more moderating body because of that.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Barbara Boxer is retiring.

Only problem is that the Democratic field may be so crowded the jungle primary may just end having two Republican candidates go on to the general election.

lol, it CA and the Dems have strong people there.

 

[Chichikov]

The movie isn't too bad either, not as good as the book but still good. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9wcK6qvCqI

You know, I could never figure out why that movie doesn't quite work as well as it should, it has an amazing cast, Mike Nichols is a solid director, I can't point to anything particularly wrong with the script and I don't think the book is super-unfilmable, but still, something is just off there.
I don't know, maybe it's the ██████████████████████████████████ or ███████████████████ and ███████████████████████ fire ███████.

- Washington Irving.​

 

[B-Dubs]

You know, I could never figure out why that movie doesn't quite work as well as it should, it has an amazing cast, Mike Nichols is a solid director, I can't point to anything particularly wrong with the script and I don't think the book is super-unfilmable, but still, something is just off there.
I don't know, maybe it's the ██████████████████████████████████ or ███████████████████ and ███████████████████████ fire ███████.

- Washington Irving.​

It's the density of the book. There's so much stuff going on in there that it's impossible to fit it all in a movie. The movie had to take some creative license with some characters and plot lines, Hungry Joe's and Nately's Whore's as a few examples, to make it work. An HBO style miniseries would probably be a better adaptation, not that the movie isn't excellent mind you. The cast and director are perfect, it's just too condensed. A bunch of great moments get cut right out due to time constraints.

Plus, while the visual gags still work, the majority of the wordplay gags are completely lost.

I yearn for you tragically.

- A.T.Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army

 

[Chichikov]

It's the density of the book.

I know just the guy.

p.s.
You're right about a miniseries, father, man, I would love to say HBO budget realizing a cat strangling a man in his sleep.

 

[Y2Kev]

+252,000 jobs in December

Unemployment at 5.6%

Thank you Mitch McConnell!

 

[Plinko]

+252,000 jobs in December

Unemployment at 5.6%

Thank you Mitch McConnell!

Best year since 1999!

Clearly businesses last year were reacting to the definite possibility of the GOP reclaiming Congress. I mean, I can't think of any other reason they'd start hiring again.

 

[GhaleonEB]

+252,000 jobs in December

Unemployment at 5.6%

Thank you Mitch McConnell!

Prior two months revised up a combined 50k. McConnell's magic was retroactive. Damn they're good.

 

[HylianTom]

Obama.. Biden.. get your asses in front of every damn camera that'll broadcast and brag, goddammit! Loudly and repeatedly! Wear a big-ass gaudy crown that says "King of Job Creation" if you feel the need to; this is the only way you will get credit from voters, as they are usually too busy paying attention to Honey Boo Boo or Jessica Simpson, or whoever's on TV these days..

I mean, damn. This should be a fucking slam dunk.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

"Bend Over and Take it Like a Prisoner!" is the title of the 10th chapter of Huckabee's 12th book, God, Guns, Grits, and Gravy - which, as a whole, is an achievement in the genre of poorly written pandering.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...16-bend-over-and-take-it-like-a-prisoner.html

 

[Plinko]

Obama.. Biden.. get your asses in front of every damn camera that'll broadcast and brag, goddammit! Loudly and repeatedly! Wear a big-ass gaudy crown that says "King of Job Creation" if you feel the need to; this is the only way you will get credit from voters, as they are usually too busy paying attention to Honey Boo Boo or Jessica Simpson, or whoever's on TV these days..

I mean, damn. This should be a fucking slam dunk.

Agreed. The democrats are masters of terrible marketing.