RNC Shoots Itself in the Mouth

[Ravi]

do you think she refuses her social security check?

Absolutely not. My Dad thought JFK was the devil in commie clothing but even he cashed his SS and used Medicare.

You really need to make up your mind on Social Security and Medicare. Either you support it or you don't. Either it pays off for Everyone that has put into it or it doesn't. If it doesn't, we want our money back with interest. The 24% interest charged for cash advances on our Credit Cards, seems like a fair Market Value. Send the checks to Intense Enterprises. Grand Cayman Island, General Delivery.

I can honestly say the my father got his money's worth out of Medicare...as he should have, that was the promise. And I don't begrudge a penny I have paid into it.

 

[teapartysamurai]

You libs are losing your shirts in front of the USSC and you whine about an RNC ad?

What? Is that all you've got left?

 

[jillian]

You really need to make up your mind on Social Security and Medicare. Either you support it or you don't. Either it pays off for Everyone that has put into it or it doesn't. If it doesn't, we want our money back with interest. The 24% interest charged for cash advances on our Credit Cards, seems like a fair Market Value. Send the checks to Intense Enterprises. Grand Cayman Island, General Delivery.

really? how much money do i get back from what they paid blackwater?

rightwingers are very funny sometimes.

How many different ways is Federal Money Blown? Pissed away? ... Not who, between us, is Encouraging more of the same, and who is saying, stop the Madness???

social security, health care, EPA, OSHA, etc, aren't wastes of money. Head Start isn't a waste of money. WIC isn't a waste of money.....etc...

if you're worried about the bottom line, you should support the expiration of the bush tax cuts.

 

[Stephanie]

do you think she refuses her social security check?

lol, man you lefties are pretty vicious these days...oh well, nothing new.
Oh and I'm not old enough for SS...are you collecting yours jilly dear..?

nope... i'm not eligible for another two decades.

but i help pay for yours with every paycheck.

Jilly, that article was stupid..posted from some BLOG...I always found you a little more sensible than that...what happened?
You all are always in favor of the courts when it seems to go your way, but now that the Supreme court is taking up ObamaCare you seem to be fretting over it..and you being a lawyer, you have to had known it was Unconstitional?

 

[jillian]

lol, man you lefties are pretty vicious these days...oh well, nothing new.
Oh and I'm not old enough for SS...are you collecting yours jilly dear..?

nope... i'm not eligible for another two decades.

but i help pay for yours with every paycheck.

Jilly, that article was stupid..posted from some BLOG...I always found you a little more sensible than that...what happened?
You all are always in favor of the courts when it seems to go your way, but now that the Supreme court is taking up ObamaCare you seem to be fretting over it..and you being a lawyer, you have to had known it was Unconstitional?

the "blog", dear, was SCOTUSblog. it is non partisan. it exists only for court junkies.

you're not very smart. and i always appreciate when half the court agrees with me and some imbecile tells me that they "know" something is unconstitutional.

 

[GHook93]

Well, if the health care reform gets shot down a lot of people will be upset. No more coverage for pre-existing conditions? No keeping your kids under your policy until they can afford their own?

Sounds like a Democrat majority in the making.

If it doesn't get shot down then a lot of people will be upset.

Funny thing about this law is its really market-based and private insurance based. If in was introduced in say 2006 under Bush, then the GOP would have supported it and the D's would be against it!

This plan will fail for these reasons:
(1) Make insurance co's treat and charge everyone the same and disallow denial due to pre-existing conditions (great in theory) will and already is raising everyone insurance premiums. Set to get worse in 2014.
(2) The individual mandate would fail either way. First, Obamacare is making insurance premium skyrocket either way, because now they have to rate everyone as a high risk. The mandate was created to offset those increased cost of insuring sick people. It won't work. Too many people will be exempt and ones who aren't will ignore the mandate. Not too mention, the cost of adding everyone isn't close to for the insurance co's to cover the costs!
(3) Did I mention the cost of health insurance will skyrocket for everyone including businesses?


What is better you might ask? Ask John Kerry!

 

[Stephanie]

nope... i'm not eligible for another two decades.

but i help pay for yours with every paycheck.

Jilly, that article was stupid..posted from some BLOG...I always found you a little more sensible than that...what happened?
You all are always in favor of the courts when it seems to go your way, but now that the Supreme court is taking up ObamaCare you seem to be fretting over it..and you being a lawyer, you have to had known it was Unconstitional?

the "blog", dear, was SCOTUSblog. it is non partisan. it exists only for court junkies.

you're not very smart. and i always appreciate when half the court agrees with me and some imbecile tells me that they "know" something is unconstitutional.

you just didn't care, did you?
and if that blog is for court junkies..it's pretty sad..that writer and his article was stupid
oh well...done trying to talk with ya...see ya

 

[RetiredGySgt]

man, the violent rhetoric is sure heating up

shoots themselves in the mouth?

How funny you find it, that everything is now "supposedly doctored" by everyone but the DNC..

I'd have to say this article just about made me vomit

waaaaaaaa waaaa waaaaaa

Staph, everything rational makes you vomit. You should get that looked at. Maybe Medicare will pay.

do you think she refuses her social security check?

Why would anyone refuse money they paid in? You might lose so in desperation you are grasping at straws. Keep it up, you prove what a hack you are every post you make.

 

[Lumpy 1]

That blog is fairly balanced but Goldstein is still a leftist lawyer with full blown sour grapes..

He doesn't even bother to sound professional, no wonder he's lost so many cases.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

For every step forward we make, the pubs drag us backward two steps. Thanks to their crooked SCOTUS, we'll lose a very real chance to have 21st century medicine in the United States AND, we can expect insurance rates to go sky high after they make their "decision".

Anyone who believes this is a carefully considered question by an unbiased group are just plain stupid. Ask yourself when the last time you saw one of the conservative justice NOT side with the pubs. The answer is, NEVER. If you actually listened today, you heard the conservatives legislate from the bench and then laugh when they were called on it.

The rw's this loss to the American people. They will celebrate because they can keep their free health care, except its not free. Those of us who believe in personal responsibility will go on paying for those who don't.

 

[Stephanie]

For every step forward we make, the pubs drag us backward two steps. Thanks to their crooked SCOTUS, we'll lose a very real chance to have 21st century medicine in the United States AND, we can expect insurance rates to go sky high after they make their "decision".

Anyone who believes this is a carefully considered question by an unbiased group are just plain stupid. Ask yourself when the last time you saw one of the conservative justice NOT side with the pubs. The answer is, NEVER. If you actually listened today, you heard the conservatives legislate from the bench and then laugh when they were called on it.

The rw's this loss to the American people. They will celebrate because they can keep their free health care, except its not free. Those of us who believe in personal responsibility will go on paying for those who don't.

wtf?

 

[The Rabbi]

And we all know that bloomberg is 100% unbiased. Yeah thats it.

The govt's case looks like the clusterfuck it is. When called on to defend the mandate on constitutional grounds they stuttered and couldn't say much. Of course. This is the same crowd that asked "Are you serious?" when questioned about the constitutionality of it. OR "I really dont care about the constitution." Well, now they're going to get a lesson in ConLaw (which Obama never taught, obviously) at private school rates.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wow. Just fucking wow.

I keep telling you all Jillian is not right in the head

 

[naturegirl]

For every step forward we make, the pubs drag us backward two steps. Thanks to their crooked SCOTUS, we'll lose a very real chance to have 21st century medicine in the United States AND, we can expect insurance rates to go sky high after they make their "decision".

Anyone who believes this is a carefully considered question by an unbiased group are just plain stupid. Ask yourself when the last time you saw one of the conservative justice NOT side with the pubs. The answer is, NEVER. If you actually listened today, you heard the conservatives legislate from the bench and then laugh when they were called on it.

The rw's this loss to the American people. They will celebrate because they can keep their free health care, except its not free. Those of us who believe in personal responsibility will go on paying for those who don't.

Sonny, hate to break this to ya but when Barry started messing with Health Care, it totally skyrocketed. Let me buy health insurance where ever I want, without government interference and let loser pay all in those bogus law suits. Let's see how competitive those rates become.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But Bloomberg News had the good sense to actually compare the actual argument audio with what the RNC distributed. It turns out to have been materially doctored. As the Bloomberg piece says, “A review of a transcript and recordings of those moments shows that Verrilli took a sip of water just once, paused for a much briefer period, and completed his thought, rather than stuttering and trailing off as heard in the doctored version.”

This is hardly surprising or even noteworthy – the republican tradition of lying and falsifying records goes back decades, from GWB lying about WMDs, to Reagan and Iran-Contra, Nixon and Watergate, and Joe McCarthy’s illegal witch-hunt for ‘communists.’

 

[BluePhantom]

The RNC shoots itself in the mouth
By Tom Goldstein on Mar 29, 2012 at 8:01 pm

Opponents of the Affordable Care Act and the Obama Administration really could not have had a better week. They did a tremendous job framing their constitutional argument against the statute to the public, the lawyers on their side were brilliant, and it appears that they had a receptive Supreme Court majority. It was an 11 on a scale of 10.

Now this. The RNC released an advertisement (embedded in the story linked below) with audio from the halting beginning to Don Verrilli’s oral argument on the individual mandate to make the point that (as the ad’s title says) “ObamaCare: It’s a tough sell.” So far as I can tell, it is less a real ad that would actually run than a stunt intended to draw attention – no less a stunt than the DNC surely has done in lots of other contexts.

But Bloomberg News had the good sense to actually compare the actual argument audio with what the RNC distributed. It turns out to have been materially doctored. As the Bloomberg piece says, “A review of a transcript and recordings of those moments shows that Verrilli took a sip of water just once, paused for a much briefer period, and completed his thought, rather than stuttering and trailing off as heard in the doctored version.”

I’ve been in practice for seventeen years, and the blog has existed for ten, and this is the single most classless and misleading thing I’ve ever seen related to the Court. It is as if the RNC decided to take an incredibly serious and successful argument that has the chance to produce a pathbreaking legal victory for a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, drag it through the mud, and vomit on it. I would be shocked if a serious conservative lawyer would stand by the ad.

SCOTUSblog

Hmmmmm....I mean come on Jillian. You know I love ya but if this is all the left can come up with regarding how evil us on the right are in regards to health care....I mean this isn't exactly the most terrible thing in the world. Talking something someone said and playing it over and over in a political ad is pretty much a common tactic regardless of political party.

And truth be told, I listened to all 6 hours of arguments and there were several times when General Verrilli got tongue tied and flat out had no answer to the question before him. I don't mean he gave a bullshit answer...I mean he stammered around and gave no answer at all.

I am not seeing a whole lot of sin here.

 

[jillian]

The RNC shoots itself in the mouth
By Tom Goldstein on Mar 29, 2012 at 8:01 pm

Opponents of the Affordable Care Act and the Obama Administration really could not have had a better week. They did a tremendous job framing their constitutional argument against the statute to the public, the lawyers on their side were brilliant, and it appears that they had a receptive Supreme Court majority. It was an 11 on a scale of 10.

Now this. The RNC released an advertisement (embedded in the story linked below) with audio from the halting beginning to Don Verrilli’s oral argument on the individual mandate to make the point that (as the ad’s title says) “ObamaCare: It’s a tough sell.” So far as I can tell, it is less a real ad that would actually run than a stunt intended to draw attention – no less a stunt than the DNC surely has done in lots of other contexts.

But Bloomberg News had the good sense to actually compare the actual argument audio with what the RNC distributed. It turns out to have been materially doctored. As the Bloomberg piece says, “A review of a transcript and recordings of those moments shows that Verrilli took a sip of water just once, paused for a much briefer period, and completed his thought, rather than stuttering and trailing off as heard in the doctored version.”

I’ve been in practice for seventeen years, and the blog has existed for ten, and this is the single most classless and misleading thing I’ve ever seen related to the Court. It is as if the RNC decided to take an incredibly serious and successful argument that has the chance to produce a pathbreaking legal victory for a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, drag it through the mud, and vomit on it. I would be shocked if a serious conservative lawyer would stand by the ad.

SCOTUSblog

Hmmmmm....I mean come on Jillian. You know I love ya but if this is all the left can come up with regarding how evil us on the right are in regards to health care....I mean this isn't exactly the most terrible thing in the world. Talking something someone said and playing it over and over in a political ad is pretty much a common tactic regardless of political party.

And truth be told, I listened to all 6 hours of arguments and there were several times when General Verrilli got tongue tied and flat out had no answer to the question before him. I don't mean he gave a bullshit answer...I mean he stammered around and gave no answer at all.

I am not seeing a whole lot of sin here.

this isn't the "left" honey. it's a non partisan blogger for SCOTUS junkies.

try looking at what he's saying without pre-judging.

this is a great blog, btw... they did a bang up assessment of the argument the past three days. go look if you don't believe me.

 

[g5000]

Well, if the health care reform gets shot down a lot of people will be upset. No more coverage for pre-existing conditions? No keeping your kids under your policy until they can afford their own?

Sounds like a Democrat majority in the making.

Only a seriously desperate person would argue that ObamaCare being defeated or NOT being defeated is a win/win.

Your post is also guilty of a fallacy of the excluded middle.

 

[BluePhantom]

this isn't the "left" honey. it's a non partisan blogger for SCOTUS junkies.

try looking at what he's saying without pre-judging.

this is a great blog, btw... they did a bang up assessment of the argument the past three days. go look if you don't believe me.

Ok but you are generally of the left and you saw fit to post this as a legitimate argument...one would assume to bolster your usual position, which is usually (but not always) leaning toward a left wing point of view. You chose the title "RNC Shoots Itself in the Mouth" which suggests you are taking a shot at Republicans.

If your motivation was purely informative instead of aggressive then I certainly stand corrected and offer my apologies for being presumptive. In such a case I would direct my comments not at you but at the author of the article you posted.

But that being said I will take some time and read through the blog a bit.

 

[jillian]

this isn't the "left" honey. it's a non partisan blogger for SCOTUS junkies.

try looking at what he's saying without pre-judging.

this is a great blog, btw... they did a bang up assessment of the argument the past three days. go look if you don't believe me.

Ok but you are generally of the left and you saw fit to post this as a legitimate argument...one would assume to bolster your usual position, which is usually (but not always) leaning toward a left wing point of view. You chose the title "RNC Shoots Itself in the Mouth" which suggests you are taking a shot at Republicans.

If your motivation was purely informative instead of aggressive then I certainly stand corrected and offer my apologies for being presumptive. In such a case I would direct my comments not at you but at the author of the article you posted.

But that being said I will take some time and read through the blog a bit.

i posted it for multiple reasons. first, i thought it was interesting. second, i thought it was accurate in it's view of both the positives and negatives of what happened at oral argument this week. if pushed to a third, i have to admit a little aggression because i knew his objective assessment wouldn't make the righties unhappy who were already going to buy liquor to celebrate us not being covered for pre-existing conditions, and our kids' insurance coverage being terminated. but not a lot of aggresssion.

but that doesn't change the fact that the reason i liked it was because it was from a non-partisan source.