Support NeoGAF

[Mike M]

What I don't get is why she just doesn't announce already She is getting attacked like someone running with no official rebuttal apparatus.

I believe the moment she formally announces, she falls under campaign regulations that she otherwise would not.

 

[Jooney]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/0...eighs-health-law-gop-plans-to-replace-it.html

For Republicans itching for that fight now, a Supreme Court decision for the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell, the latest challenge to the health law, would force the issue.

Mr. Obama’s first recourse would be to rush to Congress with a quick technical fix that would eliminate the words in the law that are in dispute — a single phrase that the plaintiffs maintain restricts insurance subsidies to the states that build and maintain their own health insurance marketplaces.

If Congress resists, predicted Mr. Sasse, the Nebraska senator, the administration would probably turn to the 37 governors and legislatures that have declined to build their own state exchanges, offering partnerships that would technically put the exchanges in their states into compliance with the court’s decision.

To ease the pressure on Congress and Republican governors, Congress needs to have an alternative ready, Mr. Sasse said.

Under the Ryan-Upton-Kline proposal, states would be able to opt out of the health law’s individual and employer coverage mandates, and insurance policies would no longer have to meet the minimum coverage standards set by the law. But it would maintain generous tax credits for the purchase of private insurance policies, including “refundable” tax credits for those who earn too little to owe income taxes.


The trio would keep the health law’s most popular elements: allowing children to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26, prohibiting lifetime coverage limits and protecting people with existing health problems.

In the Senate, Mr. Hatch and Senator Richard Burr, Republican of North Carolina, are pushing an even broader plan to replace the health law. Their Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility, and Empowerment (CARE) Act would offer tax subsidies for the purchase of health care to any family earning up to 300 percent of the poverty level and replace the Obama health care tax on expensive “Cadillac” health plans with a limit on the deductibility of employer-provided health insurance.

It would do away with the health law’s expansion of Medicaid, and it would end the mandate that large employers provide insurance and that most individuals be insured. The nonpartisan Center for Health and Economy estimated that four million people would lose insurance under the plan, compared with the current law, but that the cost of insurance would go down, especially for low-end plans, and the cost to the government would be cut by $534 billion over 10 years.

GOP scrambling to put a coherent proposal in place in the event the court rules in favour of King. Not surprisingly the current proposals keep things people like (e.g. < 26 yo coverage) but eliminates things people don't like, which coincidentally are the things that help pay for the law (eg. Individual and employer mandates).

 

[Fenderputty]

Because we're discussing the claim that there is not a "scintilla of legislative history suggesting that without subsidies, there will be a death spiral." But if you're asking why Carvin felt the need to do so, it's because that fact (if it is a fact) may be important for those justices who consider legislative history in interpreting a statute.

When in legislative history have we had something like this come up (national health care / millions insured at risk)? Seems kinda silly to bring up if there's no similar comparison to draw.

 

[Metaphoreus]

When in legislative history have we had something like this come up (national health care / millions insured at risk)? Seems kinda silly to bring up if there's no similar comparison to draw.

Heh. That's not what "legislative history" means.

 

[Fenderputty]

Heh. That's not what "legislative history" means.

I suppose that does change the perspective in which I viewed that comment.

 

[Black Mamba]

It's pretty hard to believe that there were no actuary reports to describe why the subsidies, mandate, community ratings, etc were important and each necessary to the success of the bill.

I mean, how else could they even determine how big to make the subsidies?

There's a good chance Carvin was just bullshitting and hoping to not get called out.

 

[Black Mamba]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-stoltzfus-jost/the-false-analogy-of-terr_b_6818114.html

Curious for a response from metaphosphorous

 

[speculawyer]

Salon with a great trolling headline . . .

Sam Brownback may turn to socialism to save Kansas from his supply-side budget fiasco

Confronted with a $344 million revenue shortfall that must be filled by June 30, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback has defiantly refused to rethink his massive, budget-busting income tax cuts for businesses and the wealthy. Instead, the Republican is resorting to a spate of other measures: slashing education, raiding the state’s highway fund, diminishing pension contributions, and proposing new sales taxes, which disproportionately hit low-income people. Still, these drastic steps won’t suffice, a harsh reality that has forced Brownback and his Republican allies in the legislature to contemplate the previously unthinkable: turning to a socialist program, Medicaid, to rescue the state from the disastrous consequences of their right-wing economic experiment.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/05/sam...ve_kansas_from_his_supply_side_budget_fiasco/

Possibly threadworthy.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The ACLU has filed an amicus brief with the District Court in the appeal of the USPTO's decision to cancel the Redskins' trademark, arguing that the provision of law on which USPTO's decision was based is unconstitutional:

Few principles in constitutional law are as settled as the First Amendment&#8217;s prohibition on government regulation of private speech based on viewpoint. The courts have never blessed a government program that permits government actors to determine the acceptability of a speaker&#8217;s viewpoint and then condition benefits based on that determination. The First Amendment harms are magnified when such regulation of speech rests on vague and subjective terms that provide no meaningful notice to speakers as to which speech the government will find acceptable, and thereby risk&#8212;and in this case, ensure&#8212;inconsistent and discriminatory application.

These evergreen principles hold no less true simply because they arise in the context of trademark law. Yet Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), not only condones but mandates viewpoint-based discrimination in the provision of trademark registration. Section 2(a) prohibits the registration of any trademark interpreted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (&#8220;PTO&#8221 to be immoral, scandalous, or disparaging to any persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols. It is indisputable that registration of a mark provides substantial benefits to a trademark holder; it is also true that many trademarks involve expressive speech and association. Therefore, by authorizing the government to deny registration of certain marks because of a viewpoint-based determination about the character of expressive speech, Section 2(a) violates the First Amendment.

 

[Oblivion]

It's pretty hard to believe that there were no actuary reports to describe why the subsidies, mandate, community ratings, etc were important and each necessary to the success of the bill.

I mean, how else could they even determine how big to make the subsidies?

There's a good chance Carvin was just bullshitting and hoping to not get called out.

Yeah, was thinking the same thing.

Salon with a great trolling headline . . .

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/05/sam...ve_kansas_from_his_supply_side_budget_fiasco/

Possibly threadworthy.

Do it!

 

[Metaphoreus]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-stoltzfus-jost/the-false-analogy-of-terr_b_6818114.html

Curious for a response from metaphosphorous

The challengers make two arguments based on the section relating to territorial exchanges:

It did not stipulate, for example, that HHS “shall be treated as a State” for some purposes. That omission “is particularly significant since Congress knew how to provide that a non-state entity should be treated as if it were a state when it sets up an Exchange.” Specifically, § 1323 provides that if a U.S. territory establishes an Exchange, it “shall be treated as a State” for certain purposes.

The word “such” in § 1321 cannot fill this gaping hole. (Govt.Br.22.) “uch Exchange” clarifies what HHS is establishing; it does not alter the reality that HHS, not the state, is establishing it. Further, plain text and common sense refute the notion that “such Exchange” necessarily connotes an Exchange where subsidies are available. (Govt.Br.24.) In describing a territorial Exchange, the ACA likewise cross-references § 1311 and refers to “such an Exchange,” 42 U.S.C. § 18043(a)(1), but the Government admits that subsidies are not available on “such” Exchanges. (Govt.Br.23 n.7.) Whether established by the state, HHS, or a territory, the Exchange itself is the same; the only difference is that consumers who buy on state-established Exchanges will (sometimes) be reimbursed by Treasury under § 36B.

Crisco and others may disagree about the significance of a single word, but I think HuffPo is right that "such an Exchange" has a different import than "such Exchange." "Such an Exchange" means "an Exchange like that one." "Such Exchange" means "That Exchange." So I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in the second argument I quoted above. (On the other hand, "such Exchange" does not refer to "an Exchange with credits," but "an Exchange required under 1311(b) and that satisfies the requirements of 1311(d)." If "such Exchange" imports tax credits to FFEs, then it makes sense to read "such an Exchange" as having a similar effect. So I wouldn't write off this argument entirely.)

The first argument, however, is still good, notwithstanding the differences that exist between states and territories. Regarding those differences, HuffPo employs an (invalid) "argumentative technique" that Opiate has described well:

Unrelated criticism of analogies: The point of analogies is to take two otherwise dissimilar things and show how in one particular way they are similar. Obviously, some criticisms of analogies are appropriate, particularly when you criticize that direct point of comparison. The issue arises when people pick at any dissimilarity at all, as if this disproves the analogy itself.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

The ACLU has filed an amicus brief with the District Court in the appeal of the USPTO's decision to cancel the Redskins' trademark, arguing that the provision of law on which USPTO's decision was based is unconstitutional:

eh. I'm not 100% on trademark law but I don't think they are being punished. I think the government can make the case a) they're not limiting speech b) their just not using government power to enforce a private claim of property c) the government has a compelling interesting in not protecting speech that is disparaging to others.

I'm pretty absolutist when it comes to the first amendment but nobodies speech rights are being denied. People aren't having the government act as the police to protect their offensive speech (which they can still use and make money off of)

 

[Fenderputty]

I remember that Opiate post lol. How many bookmarks do you have meta? Lol

 

[Black Mamba]

The challengers make two arguments based on the section relating to territorial exchanges:


The first argument, however, is still good, notwithstanding the differences that exist between states and territories. Regarding those differences, HuffPo employs an (invalid) "argumentative technique" that Opiate has described well:

That's fine, but the government isn't arguing HSS should be treated as a state but rather that an HSS Exchange shall be treated as an Exchange created by the state.

I'd also argue that the way the territories were explicitly exempt from the tax credits in the law and yet the law made no such reference for HSS created exchanges points to the government's reading of the law.

I'll agree on the part about metaphors/analogies. I actually think the analogy favors the gov't!

 

[Metaphoreus]

eh. I'm not 100% on trademark law but I don't think they are being punished. I think the government can make the case a) they're not limiting speech b) their just not using government power to enforce a private claim of property c) the government has a compelling interesting in not protecting speech that is disparaging to others.

I'm pretty absolutist when it comes to the first amendment but nobodies speech rights are being denied. People aren't having the government act as the police to protect their offensive speech (which they can still use and make money off of)

Except when it comes to the rights of people acting through the corporate form. Or speaking freely about candidates when it costs money to do so. Otherwise, yeah, you are pretty good on the subject.

But here, I think you're wrong. Imagine if a local ordinance provided that the police and fire departments would not protect the homes of anyone who criticizes the mayor against burglars and arsonists. Would you think that ordinance comports with the First Amendment?

As the ACLU explains:

Pursuant to the &#8220;unconstitutional conditions&#8221; doctrine, the government may not place a condition on the receipt of a benefit or subsidy that infringes upon the recipient&#8217;s constitutionally protected rights, even if the government has no obligation to offer the benefit in the first instance. Specifically, the Supreme Court has explained that &#8220;the &#8216;unconstitutional conditions&#8217; doctrine holds that the government &#8216;may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected . . . freedom of speech&#8217; even if he has no entitlement to that benefit.&#8221;

I remember that Opiate post lol. How many bookmarks do you have meta? Lol

A googol.

That's fine, but the government isn't arguing HSS should be treated as a state but rather that an HSS Exchange shall be treated as an Exchange created by the state.

I'd also argue that the way the territories were explicitly exempt from the tax credits in the law and yet the law made no such reference for HSS created exchanges points to the government's reading of the law.

I'll agree on the part about metaphors/analogies. I actually think the analogy favors the gov't!

Regarding your first paragraph, the government makes a number of different arguments. One of those arguments is that a state that fails to establish an Exchange establishes an Exchange by means of HHS establishing the Exchange when the state fails to do so.

Regarding your second, the territories weren't explicitly exempted from the tax credits. It's just that, 36B limits credits to Exchanges "established by [a] State under section 1311." Because a territory isn't a "State" (except (if it establishes an Exchange) for purposes of 1311, 1312, and 1313--not 1401 (which is codified as 36B)), 36B doesn't provide credits for territorial Exchanges. But HHS isn't a "State," either. So...

 

[Black Mamba]

Dear Dr. Carson,
If being gay is a choice, prove it. Choose it. Choose to be gay yourself. Show America how that’s done, Ben, show us how a man can choose to be gay. Suck my dick. Name the time and the place and I’ll bring my dick and a camera crew and you can suck me off and win the argument.

Very sincerely yours,

Dan Savage

Regarding your first paragraph, the government makes a number of different arguments. One of those arguments is that a state that fails to establish an Exchange establishes an Exchange by means of HHS establishing the Exchange when the state fails to do so.

this is exactly what I said. This is different that what Carvin said.

Regarding your second, the territories weren't explicitly exempted from the tax credits. It's just that, 36B limits credits to Exchanges "established by [a] State under section 1311." Because a territory isn't a "State" (except (if it establishes an Exchange) for purposes of 1311, 1312, and 1313--not 1401 (which is codified as 36B)), 36B doesn't provide credits for territorial Exchanges. But HHS isn't a "State," either. So...

What I mean is, it distinctly omitted 1401 which dealt with the credits, but didn't do the same with the HSS exchange.

Put it this way, if the ACA intended to not give subsidies through HSS Exchanges, why isn't the language nearly identical to the part about territories? The territories and HSS Exchanges would be nearly identical and yet there's completely different language for them. That is bizarre.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Dear Dr. Carson,
If being gay is a choice, prove it. Choose it. Choose to be gay yourself. Show America how that’s done, Ben, show us how a man can choose to be gay. Suck my dick. Name the time and the place and I’ll bring my dick and a camera crew and you can suck me off and win the argument.

Very sincerely yours,

Dan Savage

 

[Metaphoreus]

What I mean is, it distinctly omitted 1401 which dealt with the credits, but didn't do the same with the HSS exchange.

Put it this way, if the ACA intended to not give subsidies through HSS Exchanges, why isn't the language nearly identical to the part about territories? The territories and HSS Exchanges would be nearly identical and yet there's completely different language for them. That is bizarre.

Do you mean that you'd find the challengers' argument more persuasive if 1321 said that, when HHS establishes an Exchange, it is to be "treated as a State" for purposes of 1311, 1312, and 1313? I think I must misunderstand you, because that can't be right.

 

[Black Mamba]

Do you mean that you'd find the challengers' argument more persuasive if 1321 said that, when HHS establishes an Exchange, it is to be "treated as a State" for purposes of 1311, 1312, and 1313? I think I must misunderstand you, because that can't be right.

I'm wondering why they didn't take a similar approach with the HSS Exchanges as the Territory ones, in terms of language.

 

[ivysaur12]

Dan Nowicki &#8207;@dannowicki 51s52 seconds ago
.@SenJohnMcCain to huddle with "friends" about his political future. They include his longtime political advisers Rick Davis and Carla Eudy.

If he doesn't run, #Sinema2016

EDIT: Bee tee dubs, the official pronunciation for the gay marriage case is "Oh-BURR-guh-fell".

 

[Wilsongt]

Bloomberg running a doom and gloom article about the ACA and the SC.

After Wednesday's oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court, the odds that Obamacare will survive its latest legal challenge appear slightly better than even. But instead of relief, the law's supporters should take a moment to reflect on the deeper problem for the Affordable Care Act: its persistent and widespread unpopularity. Reversing that will do more to protect the law than any court decision.

A Pew Research Center poll last month reported that almost five years after it was signed, 53 percent of people disapprove of Obamacare -- close to an all-time high. That reflects more than just partisanship; even independents dislike the law by almost 2 to 1.

DOOMED

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-06/supreme-court-can-t-save-obamacare?cmpid=yhoo

 

[thepotatoman]

Bloomberg running a doom and gloom article about the ACA and the SC.



DOOMED

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-06/supreme-court-can-t-save-obamacare?cmpid=yhoo

So many people point out the low approval ratings of obamacare, and yet so few point out the low approval of basically every alternative outside the public option, or the ACA minus the obamacare name.

 

[benjipwns]

What I don't get is why she just doesn't announce already She is getting attacked like someone running with no official rebuttal apparatus.

She's supposed to announce between now and May. According to non-campaign campaign "insiders" in various stories.

 

[Oblivion]

Also:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-be...sex-comment-the-dumbest-thing-ive-ever-heard/

When you've lost Glenn Beck...

 

[Metaphoreus]

The federal government has filed an amicus brief in Obergefell in support of petitioners:

The marriage bans challenged in these cases impermissibly exclude lesbian and gay couples from the rights, responsibilities, and status of civil marriage. These facially discriminatory laws impose concrete harms on same-sex couples and send the inescapable message that same-sex couples and their children are second-class families, unworthy of the recognition and benefits that opposite-sex couples take for granted. The bans cannot be reconciled with the fundamental constitutional guarantee of &#8220;equal protection of the laws,&#8221; U.S. Const. Amend. XIV.

...

The marriage bans at issue here cannot survive heightened scrutiny because they are not substantially related to an important governmental objective. Respondents&#8217; contention that the marriage bans encourage biological parents to jointly raise children ignores the many non-procreative aspects of marriage, assumes counterintuitively and without evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry would discourage opposite-sex couples from staying together, and unjustifiably disfavors children raised by same-sex couples by denying those couples the same incentives to remain together. Respondents&#8217; contention that the marriage bans further a state interest in proceeding with caution before departing from the traditional understanding of marriage echoes similar arguments advanced, and properly rejected, in other contexts, such as integration of public facilities and interracial marriage. And respondents&#8217; contention that the marriage bans return the issue of marriage to the democratic process simply begs the question whether those bans exceed the limits that the Equal Protection Clause imposes.

 

[thepotatoman]

Also:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/glenn-be...sex-comment-the-dumbest-thing-ive-ever-heard/

When you've lost Glenn Beck...

Just [imagine] I’m at a cocktail party and I’m talking to a friend and they say ‘well yeah, you know, you go to prison and you’re straight, you get out and you’re gay,’ don’t you look at your friend — I don’t care if he’s the guy who works at the 7-Eleven and he’s not running for president ever — don’t you go, ‘That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard’?

That's actually a really good way to sum Carson up.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Except when it comes to the rights of people acting through the corporate form. Or speaking freely about candidates when it costs money to do so. Otherwise, yeah, you are pretty good on the subject.

But here, I think you're wrong. Imagine if a local ordinance provided that the police and fire departments would not protect the homes of anyone who criticizes the mayor against burglars and arsonists. Would you think that ordinance comports with the First Amendment?

As the ACLU explains:





A googol.



Regarding your first paragraph, the government makes a number of different arguments. One of those arguments is that a state that fails to establish an Exchange establishes an Exchange by means of HHS establishing the Exchange when the state fails to do so.

Regarding your second, the territories weren't explicitly exempted from the tax credits. It's just that, 36B limits credits to Exchanges "established by [a] State under section 1311." Because a territory isn't a "State" (except (if it establishes an Exchange) for purposes of 1311, 1312, and 1313--not 1401 (which is codified as 36B)), 36B doesn't provide credits for territorial Exchanges. But HHS isn't a "State," either. So...

Well I will admit I'm against on the money equals speech doctrine and corporate speech. Like I said I'm not well versed on trademark law. I don't think its really worth the time of the FCC but I don't think its unconstitutional, I can see the merits but I do think there is a distinction there and a potential compelling interest.

I ment absolutist in the hate speech euro vs us def of free speech

If anything I'm happy they did it so we could get that south park episode

 

[NYCmetsfan]

If he doesn't run, #Sinema2016

EDIT: Bee tee dubs, the official pronunciation for the gay marriage case is "Oh-BURR-guh-fell".

I don't see why he'd want to run. He doesn't seem to care all to much about the party's current domestic interests. He's in the senate for foreign policy.

 

[PhoenixDark]

That's actually a really good way to sum Carson up.

Beck hit the nail on the head ha. How do you come back from your one major moment being...this. It's like Perry with that ridiculous anti-gay ad in 2012. You're done with the mainstream after stupid shit like that.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Well I will admit I'm against on the money equals speech doctrine and corporate speech. Like I said I'm not well versed on trademark law. I don't think its really worth the time of the FCC but I don't think its unconstitutional, I can see the merits but I do think there is a distinction there and a potential compelling interest.

I ment absolutist in the hate speech euro vs us def of free speech

If anything I'm happy they did it so we could get that south park episode

I haven't seen the South Park episode you refer to, but I think you're confusing two different actions. In June of last year, the US Patent and Trademark Office cancelled the Redskins trademarks, finding that the term "Redskins" was disparaging of Native Americans at the time the trademarks were issued. The Redskins appealed that decision by filing a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia (which sounds weird, but it's one of the ways to appeal such decisions under the relevant statute). The ACLU brief I linked to and quoted is filed in that appeal.

Meanwhile, in September of last year, one John Banzhaf filed a pleading with the FCC objecting to the renewal of a broadcast license for a broadcaster that permitted the use of the term "Redskins" on its broadcasts. In December, the FCC rejected Banzhaf's objections, in part on account of Constitutional concerns.

 

[ivysaur12]

I don't see why he'd want to run. He doesn't seem to care all to much about the party's current domestic interests. He's in the senate for foreign policy.

I know. As much as his team is like, he's running!, I don't see it. They credit it to a lack of a credible challenger, which, like, Sure Jan.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I haven't seen the South Park episode you refer to, but I think you're confusing two different actions. In June of last year, the US Patent and Trademark Office cancelled the Redskins trademarks, finding that the term "Redskins" was disparaging of Native Americans at the time the trademarks were issued. The Redskins appealed that decision by filing a lawsuit in the federal district court for the Eastern District of Virginia (which sounds weird, but it's one of the ways to appeal such decisions under the relevant statute). The ACLU brief I linked to and quoted is filed in that appeal.

Meanwhile, in September of last year, one John Banzhaf filed a pleading with the FCC objecting to the renewal of a broadcast license for a broadcaster that permitted the use of the term "Redskins" on its broadcasts. In December, the FCC rejected Banzhaf's objections, in part on account of Constitutional concerns.

The south park episode used the logo and trademark extensively.

The second case is absurd. I'm against the FCC's decency standards on broadcasts.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Minor technical point: the tax on capital gains is part of the income tax. Short-term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income, but there's no "capital gains tax" that is distinct from the income tax (in contrast to, e.g., payroll taxes or the estate tax).

I was hoping someone would try to contradict this so I could post a snarky response from forever ago, but since nobody did, I'll post the response anyhow, partially to satisfy Fenderputty's curiosity:

Ugh, no.

There is income tax, there is capital gains tax, but the 2 are different. Therefore, of course high income earners pay high income tax, but this does not include people that derive their wealth from capital gains.

Consider me amused at your disgust:

Title 26 of the U.S. Code (Internal Revenue Code)

Subtitle A (Income Taxes) (And as opposed to, e.g., Subtitle B (Estate and Gift Taxes) or C (Employment Taxes))​

Chapter 1 (Normal Taxes and Surtaxes)​

Subchapter P (Capital Gains and Losses)​

Maybe you should write Congress and let them know they're mistaken?

That is some Grade A passive aggression, if I do say so myself.

 

[speculawyer]

I was hoping someone would try to contradict this so I could post a snarky response from forever ago, but since nobody did, I'll post .

A lot of people don't bother with contradicting your bullshit because it tiresome. Yes, less than one year is ordinary income. But more than one year (which is probably most of what is claimed on personal income tax returns) is at the lower long-term capital gains rate.

But you know this, we know this, and somehow you thing you are pulling the wool over people's eyes? Go get a job with Ted Cruz and spew the crap. But just because people don't waste the time disputing your bullshit that doesn't mean it is not bullshit or that we are fooled.

 

[Metaphoreus]

A lot of people don't bother with contradicting your bullshit because it tiresome. Yes, less than one year is ordinary income. But more than one year (which is probably most of what is claimed on personal income tax returns) is at the lower long-term capital gains rate.

But you know this, we know this, and somehow you thing you are pulling the wool over people's eyes? Go get a job with Ted Cruz and spew the crap. But just because people don't waste the time disputing your bullshit that doesn't mean it is not bullshit or that we are fooled.

Well, now I'm confused. But before explaining why I'm confused, I'd just like to note that your post seems entirely uncalled for. My last post was quite obviously tongue-in-cheek, and did not require any kind of response--let alone one as hostile as yours.

But now for my confusion: which part of my post was "bullshit"? Which was "the crap"? In what way am I supposed to be "pulling the wool over people's eyes"? My admittedly "minor technical point," though minor and technical, was nevertheless accurate. And, as you can see if you follow the link embedded in my last post, I really did post what I said I posted. Did you anticipate that my next post would be, "Just kidding guys! The tax on capital gains isn't part of the income tax and I never posted what I said I did!"? What's the dealio, dude?

 

[benjipwns]

2011? You know I love ya, but that's just showing off.

I read more about that Texas case (?) where the government issued orders after court. What a incredibly stupid move lol

That's the kind of thing that leads to judges giving you a hard time in court just because.

Meanwhile, in shocking New Jersey politician accused of corruption news?!?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/politics/robert-menendez-criminal-corruption-charges-planned/

The Justice Department is preparing to bring criminal corruption charges against Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, alleging he used his Senate office to push the business interests of a Democratic donor and friend in exchange for gifts.

People briefed on the case say Attorney General Eric Holder has signed off on prosecutors' request to proceed with charges, CNN first reported. An announcement could come within weeks. Prosecutors are under pressure in part because of the statute of limitation on some of the allegations.

....

Investigators have focused in part on plane trips Menendez took in 2010 to the Dominican Republic as a guest of Melgen. In 2013, after word of the federal investigation became public, Menendez paid back Melgen $58,000 for the 2010 plane trips calling his failure to properly disclose the flights an "oversight."

...

Menendez advocated on Melgen's behalf with federal Medicare administrators who accused Melgen of overbilling the government's healthcare program, according to court documents and people briefed on the probe. Melgen was among the top recipients of Medicare reimbursements in recent years, during a time when he was also a major Democratic donor. Melgen's attorneys have denied any wrongdoing.

Prosecutors also are focusing on whether Menendez broke the law in advocating for Melgen's business interest in a Dominican Republic government contract for a port screening equipment. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, at the time, considered donating port screening equipment to the Dominican Republic, which would have hurt the contract of Melgen-controlled company.

...

During a Senate subcommittee hearing in 2012, Menendez didn't mention ICSSI, Melgen's company, by name, but he did press Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Rooney about an unnamed company who had a contract to X-ray cargo that went through all Dominican ports -- a contract that, he said, Dominican authorities "don't want to live by."

"If those countries can get away with that, they will," the senator said. "And that puts American companies at a tremendous disadvantage."

Menendez's office said at the time the senator's interest was based on his efforts to combat narcotrafficking in the region.

Other lines of inquiry against Menendez had included allegations he solicited prostitutes in the Dominican Republic, and that he violated the law helping win permanent U.S. residency for two Ecuadorian banking magnates, the Isaias brothers. The prostitution allegations collapsed after the purported prostitutes recanted their story, and the FBI didn't find evidence of wrongdoing in the Isaias matter, according to people briefed on the probe.

The FBI probe has already spawned a legal battle between the government, Menendez and his former aides. Last week, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals briefly posted, apparently by accident, documents detailing legal efforts to block certain evidence and testimony the government wants to use.

The documents were quickly put back under seal, but not before a reporter with the New Jersey Law Journal secured a copy and later published a story.

According to the documents, Menendez's lawyers have sought to claim emails and testimony from aides is protected by the constitutional protections given to members of Congress in carrying out their duties. The speech and debate clause prohibits questioning of members of Congress about "legislative acts or the motivation for legislative acts."

The fight centers in part on the Justice Department's attempt to compel testimony from Menendez's aides, some of whom have refused to answer questions to a grand jury.

According to the documents, the government wants to question aides about a series of 2012 calls and meetings on Melgen's fight with the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, a federal agency. Among these is a meeting among Mendedez, Sen. Harry Reid and then Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. The government is also pushing to use emails between Menendez's office and a CBP official about the Dominican ports issue.

A federal district court ruled in favor of the government to compel testimony from Menendez's aides, but the appeals court reversed the ruling and ordered a hearing.

This is why we need to get politics out of money.

 

[benjipwns]

Out on a Limb

&#8220;A question I often am asked is: &#8220;Who would you bet on to win the presidency?&#8221; Personally, I don&#8217;t bet on politics, but here&#8217;s my current take on the 2016 presidential race&#8212;with, of course, the caveat that we don&#8217;t know which campaigns will turn out the best in terms of organization, strategy, tactics, or execution, much less which candidates will step on land mines along the way. . . . Of course, there is no science here, and this is not a prediction&#8212;it is just a framework that can be used to start a conversation. Most die-hard Democrats will likely argue that their side has a better-than 50-50 shot, while rock-ribbed Republicans no doubt feel their side has a strong advantage. But at this early stage, anybody placing a bet would be taking a major gamble.&#8221;&#8212;Charlie Cook, National Journal, March 7 issue

 

[A Human Becoming]

I decided to finally click an anti-Obama gun control ad I kept seeing on GAF. Brace yourselves.

 

[Cloudy]

So many people point out the low approval ratings of obamacare, and yet so few point out the low approval of basically every alternative outside the public option, or the ACA minus the obamacare name.

Yep. The positive approval ratings of the individual components contained in the ACA show its just political polarization

 

[Metaphoreus]

I decided to finally click an anti-Obama gun control ad I kept seeing on GAF. Brace yourselves.

Whenever I see a video with a caption that instructs viewers to "Turn Up Your Volume," I know it's not a video I want to watch.

 

[Diablos]

I decided to finally click an anti-Obama gun control ad I kept seeing on GAF. Brace yourselves.

There is so much fluff to this. He goes on and on and on... quoting Peter Schiff or something, talking about gas prices. I'm done.

...and when I try to leave it says I'm going to lose a 25% discount. lmao
I don't even know what the discount would be for since this cocky idiot won't get to the point.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I decided to finally click an anti-Obama gun control ad I kept seeing on GAF. Brace yourselves.

I like how it starts with "if you're not proud to fly the stars and stripes and don't think that this is the best country on earth, please leave now," but when I actually tried to close the tab it gave me one of those "are you sure you want to leave the page" popups. Like, dude, I'm just trying to follow instructions here.

 

[Aaron Strife]

If he doesn't run, #Sinema2016

EDIT: Bee tee dubs, the official pronunciation for the gay marriage case is "Oh-BURR-guh-fell".

Even if he does run #Sinema2016. John McCain's approval ratings are terrible.

 

[ivysaur12]

Even if he does run #Sinema2016. John McCain's approval ratings are terrible.

I just see him as a very viable challenger, no matter what his approval ratings are like. I'd much rather have Sinema run in an open seat this year or against Flake in 2018. But turnout would favor Flake then.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Obama went beast mode at Selma, whew.

 

[Cat]

Obama's speech at Selma just ended. I wasn't warming up to it at first, but once he started to acknowledge Ferguson and the weakened Voting Rights Act, I was...well, I thought it was a good speech though I see a fair complaint on Twitter as I type this about the insertion of Christianity into politics. I'll see what others think and digest it a bit over time. He became very passionate and animated, more like how he seems to be in campaign mode than governing mode.

 

[HylianTom]

Good speech.

I'm always amazed at his ability to hold back against those who'll hate him no matter what. Remarkable restraint. I'm going to be very interested in seeing what he has to say about certain things once he's out of office and some time has passed.

And I heard that Dubya was holding hands with John Lewis. Nice, but putting up judges who gut civil rights laws means it's an empty gesture.

 

[Abinash117]

Here's the speech if anyone missed it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVAZp1j0tKc

 

[PhoenixDark]

Obama's speech at Selma just ended. I wasn't warming up to it at first, but once he started to acknowledge Ferguson and the weakened Voting Rights Act, I was...well, I thought it was a good speech though I see a fair complaint on Twitter as I type this about the insertion of Christianity into politics. I'll see what others think and digest it a bit over time. He became very passionate and animated, more like how he seems to be in campaign mode than governing mode.

Liberals...

Selma was fought on religious grounds as well as racial ones. It would be dishonest to acknowledge that today.

 

[eBay Huckster]

And I heard that Dubya was holding hands with John Lewis. Nice, but putting up judges who gut civil rights laws means it's an empty gesture.

in his very, very slim defense, he *did* also give a standing O when Obama called on Congress to restore the VRA during the speech