Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Obamacare has an impact on many things: It allows insurance coverage of pre-existing conditions, keeps children on their parents' insurance plans until they're 26, lowers the drinking age, extends coveraWAIT...what?   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com ) divider line
    More: Strange, obamacare, coveraWAIT, Roberts Court, pre-existing condition, drinking ages, majority opinion, Alcohol law, No Child Left Behind  
•       •       •

7489 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Jul 2012 at 6:31 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-07-03 10:35:25 PM  
2 votes:
ya know what still doesn't make sense? drinking ages

seriously, why not let kids start drinking at the age of 16? they're going to drink "illegally" regardless

and make 19 the age you can get a driver's license, most kids are dumbass drivers anyways

see, the kids get some experience drinking and learning how to live with it and be responsible, then they get to drive a car when they're more mature

win-win
2012-07-03 06:42:18 PM  
2 votes:

eurotrader: Any bets? If any state tries it will be Wisconsin. Wisconsin still allows under 21 to drink if active duty military and fought a few extra years even losing some highway money before going to 21. I remember the grandfather clause. Having the drinking age at 21 causes far more problems than it solves.


Yeah, it wouldn't be Louisiana, especially since they resisted changing the drinking age for years at the cost of highway funding. Nope.

Dumbass.
2012-07-03 06:32:17 PM  
2 votes:

ZAZ: The punishment for a drinking age below 21 is sufficient to deter states from changing their laws. Congress has no reason to raise the fine to a level the court would find constitutionally suspect.


The 'punishment' for dinking underage is also a great money maker for courts, treatment centers, etc.
It's bullsh*t. They're going to drink anyhow. They give these young half wits a driver's license so they can text and kill. Let them get drunk, get it out of their system and then drive when they're older.
2012-07-03 05:10:11 PM  
2 votes:
I was wondering how that part of Roberts' ruling was going to effect things.

I think that his ruling on HCR is going to end up being one of the most pivotal rulings in decades. He really dropped one on us.
2012-07-03 05:06:19 PM  
2 votes:
Not holding my breath on this one.
2012-07-03 10:50:59 PM  
1 vote:

ontariolightning: america is an enigma to the rest of the civilized world.. healthcare = too socialist. .. gay marriage will ruin traditional families. Change the drinking age from 21 and every teen will be driving around drunk... America is the perfect example of what listening to reactionist morons on tv will do to a country


It's weird, we just have to assume that Americans think other Americans are all really, really easily influenced. Like nobody paints their baby's rooms green for fear they'll grow up wanting to have sex with Kermit.
2012-07-03 08:31:39 PM  
1 vote:

clowncar on fire: 18-21: three years of weening off the tit and being granted the privileges of being an adult. Keep the age at 21 and save the best for last.


farking puritanical Americans. Somehow I feel this ties in to yesterday's thread about the southernization of the country.

/grew up in Germany
//have no idea what these "best for last" ideas are all about
2012-07-03 07:54:18 PM  
1 vote:

ontariolightning: america is an enigma to the rest of the civilized world


I don't know why but I read that as an enema.
2012-07-03 07:47:47 PM  
1 vote:

GAT_00: I was wondering how that part of Roberts' ruling was going to effect things.

I think that his ruling on HCR is going to end up being one of the most pivotal rulings in decades. He really dropped one on us.


I think he took a look at The Big Picture, realized that if he votes against this, then the SCOTUS really would be an arm of the GOP and the Koch brothers. Despite some of his past rulings, I think there was still a fragment of ha conscience left within him.

A no brainer that Scalia (a mafia thug who ever was one) would try to kill it, and Clarence Thomas would even vote to repeal the 13th Amendment if given a chance (then dance a jig as he's lead off in chains to go work on Massuh Limbaugh's sugar cane plantation).
2012-07-03 07:03:39 PM  
1 vote:

bugontherug: GAT_00: bugontherug: I really don't understand why Congress threatened to take away 100% of Medicaid funds for refusal to accept the expansion. A first year law student could have told them "wow, that's much more coercive than what was attempted in South Dakota v. Dole. You'll be begging for a challenge there. And with this conservative court, it will have a decent chance of success. Why don't you retract *some* of those funds instead of *all* of them?"

As is evidenced by Jindal, Scott and Walker, you have to threaten the GOP to get them to help their citizens.

Yeah, but why all funds? It just so obviously gave opponents an issue to fight. Why not threaten to withhold just enough funds so that states who opt out have to take on the majority share of existing Medicaid costs? Reagan got all 50 states to enact age 21 drinking laws, and he didn't have to threaten to withhold 100% of highway funds. I suppose Congress maybe thought there would be more resistance to this, since it actually imposes some demands on state budgets. But still.


Because these morons don't understand subtlety. They'll happily partially fark over their citizens. Making it an all or nothing thing is all the GOP understands. The world is totally black and white to them.
2012-07-03 06:52:36 PM  
1 vote:

bugontherug: I really don't understand why Congress threatened to take away 100% of Medicaid funds for refusal to accept the expansion. A first year law student could have told them "wow, that's much more coercive than what was attempted in South Dakota v. Dole. You'll be begging for a challenge there. And with this conservative court, it will have a decent chance of success. Why don't you retract *some* of those funds instead of *all* of them?"


As is evidenced by Jindal, Scott and Walker, you have to threaten the GOP to get them to help their citizens.
2012-07-03 06:45:53 PM  
1 vote:
Looks like it's time to move to Tennessee and open up drive-through shotgun wedding franchises
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-07-03 05:29:32 PM  
1 vote:
The punishment for a drinking age below 21 is sufficient to deter states from changing their laws. Congress has no reason to raise the fine to a level the court would find constitutionally suspect.
2012-07-03 04:55:54 PM  
1 vote:
Ok, so I'll have to admit there is one good idea in the new tax.


You can fight and die for your country, but you cant to go into a bar?! Never made sense to me.
 
Displayed 14 of 14 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report