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.

(The Raw Story)   George Will: See, Obamacare is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court decided it was constitutional, right? See, so your hair is a bird, your argument is invalid, and that automatically makes Sarah Palin President, okay?   (rawstory.com) divider line 120
    More: Stupid, George Will, Supreme Court, obamacare, constitutions, d.c. circuit court of appeals, Crooks & Liars, Obamacare unconstitutional  
•       •       •

2352 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2014 at 2:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-23 03:00:53 PM  

alizeran: Byno: Not hipster enough.  He doesn't even have a hat!

Challenge accepted.
[img.fark.net image 768x1024]


Okay, I gotta ask...WHAT THE FARK is that? ;^)
 
2014-04-23 03:01:29 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Aquapope: ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

I heard that last night on Colbert and had no idea what the hell he was talking about.  Can you shed some light on this?

Colbert: "I'm conservative, you're conservative, I don't think anything should ever change."
Will: "That makes you a liberal?"
Colbert: "LOLWUT?"
Will: "Liberals don't want anything to change. Social Security was enacted in 1935. Do you use anything from 1935? No. Therefore, change social security."
Colbert: ".... so anyways, about Wrigley Field...."

It's a fallacious argument in multiple ways:

1) It ignores all the ways conservatives want to maintain the status quo ("traditional" marriage for example)
2) It ignores the fact that social security was a change the liberals enacted in the first place
3) It argues that once a program is put in place, modifying it is by default a conservative position, regardless of the program or its modifications

I'm sure there are other ways it's a dumb argument, but it's so blatantly trollish, it's not worth the typing.


It's not that Conservatives are gunf ho to improve Social Security, it's that they want to move it closer to the status quo ante.
 
2014-04-23 03:02:25 PM  

Aquapope: ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

I heard that last night on Colbert and had no idea what the hell he was talking about.  Can you shed some light on this?


It seems that the laws governing Social Security have never been amended of updated since 1935.
All twelve volumes of the USCA (Title 42) dealing with Social Security sprung fully formed from FRD's head, like Athena springing forth from Zeus.
 
2014-04-23 03:02:38 PM  

alizeran: Byno: Not hipster enough.  He doesn't even have a hat!

Challenge accepted.
[img.fark.net image 768x1024]


I'd like to punch that guy but I'd be too afraid of being guilty of multiple hate crimes.
 
2014-04-23 03:02:43 PM  

Tricky Chicken: I am now going to try to actually read the article to see what George was trying to say.


Prepare for stupidity.  And here's the rebuttal you will need to fight that stupidity:

kidgenius: The PPACA was attached as an amendment to a previously existing revenue-generating bill that had already originated in the House. The Senate is perfectly free to propose amendments to bills, per the exact same origination clause.

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

 
2014-04-23 03:03:24 PM  

Johhny Wad: But I thought the debate on obamacare  was over!?!?!


It will never be over, so long as the sun crosses the sky and websites roll out, so long as man walks the Earth and Dr. Seuss books remain readily available, so long as the tides turn and Benghazi is a thing, it will never be over.
 
2014-04-23 03:03:42 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Mitch Taylor's Bro: ristst: Mitch Taylor's Bro: What if it's unconstitutional, but improves the lives of millions of people anyway?

That would depend on who gets the improvements.

Good point. I was thinking millions of poor people who lacked health care insurance due to financial or pre-existing conditions (or pre-existing financial conditions), but I suppose it could improve the lives of millionsthousands of health care insurance company executives and investors, too.

I want to own a business where I get paid by people who don't require my service while those who do require that service get said service paid for by the government.  The government takes almost all the risk and I take almost all the profits.


They're all publically traded companies. You certainly can be an "owner".
 
2014-04-23 03:05:30 PM  
Actually, only one SCOTUS justice said it was constitutional under Congress's taxing power. (That would be the Chief Justice.) Four more said it was constitutional under the commerce clause and 4 more said it was unconstitutional.Therefore, even if this issue ever somehow go to the SCOTUS (which it won't because the courts don't touch these types of issues with a ten-foot poll, and besides it was properly originated in the house anyway) it is entirely possible that 8 justices say that it wasn't a renenue bill, and there is no procedural problem.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-23 03:05:33 PM  

Stile4aly: It's not that Conservatives are gunf ho to improve Social Security, it's that they want to move it closer to the status quo ante.


As much as the GOP has inflamed blowhard assholes over the idea of "wealth redistribution," they are actually at least as much for it as any Democrat, except they are for the money flowing in the opposite direction.

Calling the current Democrats socialists when they are overrun by corporate interests is just plain stupid.  Plus the GOP are just as socialist in their own ways since not being so means all the fat retirees in Florida would start voting against them.
 
2014-04-23 03:06:05 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Mitch Taylor's Bro: ristst: Mitch Taylor's Bro: What if it's unconstitutional, but improves the lives of millions of people anyway?

That would depend on who gets the improvements.

Good point. I was thinking millions of poor people who lacked health care insurance due to financial or pre-existing conditions (or pre-existing financial conditions), but I suppose it could improve the lives of millionsthousands of health care insurance company executives and investors, too.

I want to own a business where I get paid by people who don't require my service while those who do require that service get said service paid for by the government.  The government takes almost all the risk and I take almost all the profits.


Then blame George Will and his ilk. If not for them, we would have the universal single-payer system that we've already been paying for.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-23 03:06:37 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: Johhny Wad: But I thought the debate on obamacare  was over!?!?!

It will never be over, so long as the sun crosses the sky and websites roll out, so long as man walks the Earth and Dr. Seuss books remain readily available, so long as the tides turn and Benghazi is a thing, it will never be over.


There are still Gilded Age-ers butthurt about Roosevelt's New Deal...  you are absolutely right.
 
2014-04-23 03:07:28 PM  

Stone Meadow: alizeran: Byno: Not hipster enough.  He doesn't even have a hat!

Challenge accepted.
[img.fark.net image 768x1024]

Okay, I gotta ask...WHAT THE FARK is that? ;^)


It kind of looks like a CalTran train.
 
2014-04-23 03:07:42 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Ok, I came in here intending to bash on subby for not having any reading comprehension.  Since the article was taking a while do download, I had to wait till I could read it myself.

First line of article "Fox News contributor George Will on Sunday argued that the United States Supreme Court had inadvertently made President Barack Obama's health care reform law unconstitutional when the justices ruled that it was not unconstitutional "

So, Subby, please accept my sincere appology for my knee jerk reaction to your headline.  I am now going to try to actually read the article to see what George was trying to say.


Short enough article. So he thinks there was some sort of proceedural issue that could be used to challenge it on a technicallity. Good luck with that.

I would have brought up the lefty argument. it makes more sense.
Obama is a lefty
He signed the bill with his left hand
The latin word for left is 'sinsiter'
That makes the bill endorsed by evil.
 
2014-04-23 03:08:21 PM  

give me doughnuts: It seems that the laws governing Social Security have never been amended of updated since 1935.


They have.
 
2014-04-23 03:10:02 PM  

TV's Vinnie: When the day comes where Sunday political talk shows are off the air, he's going to be in a corner in a fetal position, muttering to a dog turd about how relevant he is to the DC beltway.


"Every day he stands in front of a mirror and says I'm a STAR, I'm a STAR"
-Don Rickles ragging Tommy Newsom (Mr. Excitement) on The Tonight Show
 
2014-04-23 03:10:56 PM  

kidgenius: What they don't like is that HR 3590 was not initially the PPACA. It was a different revenue generating bill. The Senate, knowing the Constitution, took HR 3590, attached a huge amendment to it (the PPACA), and re-named it.

"Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D-NY) on September 17, 2009"

Yeah, maybe "dirty and sleazy", but within the rules. Don't hate the player, hate the game.


Exactly the "gut and replace" procedure has been done for decades, and the courts have been willing to accept it over and over. Mostly as a matter of staying out of the legislative branch's business.

If it was capable of defeating PPACA, the plaintiffs in NFIB vs Sebelius (et al) would have run that argument up the flagpole (like they did several other long-shot theories).  They didn't even bother doing that because it is a dumb, dumb argument.
 
2014-04-23 03:11:35 PM  

dopirt: Stone Meadow: alizeran: Byno: Not hipster enough.  He doesn't even have a hat!

Challenge accepted.
[img.fark.net image 768x1024]

Okay, I gotta ask...WHAT THE FARK is that? ;^)

It kind of looks like a CalTran train.


And now that I think about it, there is a weirdo day festival in San Francisco. I was on that line when it was filled with oddballs like that fellow.
 
2014-04-23 03:11:42 PM  
I found George Will's chin. It was in my desk drawer. I have no idea how it got there, but I'll Fedex it out right away.
 
2014-04-23 03:12:46 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Tricky Chicken: I am now going to try to actually read the article to see what George was trying to say.

Prepare for stupidity.  And here's the rebuttal you will need to fight that stupidity:

kidgenius: The PPACA was attached as an amendment to a previously existing revenue-generating bill that had already originated in the House. The Senate is perfectly free to propose amendments to bills, per the exact same origination clause.

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."


Yeah, I read that too.  This all delves way to far into constitutional law minutae for my comfort zone.  I prefer to stick to sompler constitutional questions like ''How do 'under god' and 'in god we trust' not establish religion?"  Personally I live under ceiling cat and I trust in my goalie.
 
2014-04-23 03:13:15 PM  

Stone Meadow: alizeran: Byno: Not hipster enough.  He doesn't even have a hat!

Challenge accepted.
[img.fark.net image 768x1024]

Okay, I gotta ask...WHAT THE FARK is that? ;^)


Go to Dolores Park in San Francisco some weekend. That's nothing.
 
2014-04-23 03:18:06 PM  

Pocket Ninja: George Will is entirely correct, but he's failing to account for one critical fact: Obama was elected without actually being a United States citizen. This in itself invalidated the Constitution, which means that Obamacare cannot, from a strictly legalistic sense, be unconstitutional.


Actually, since he was sworn in on a Koran, with a gold-fringed flag pin on his lapel, the double secret reptiod constitution is in effect, and all non-reptoids BY LAW have to speak in pig latin at all times.
 
2014-04-23 03:22:29 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Ok, I came in here intending to bash on subby for not having any reading comprehension.  Since the article was taking a while do download, I had to wait till I could read it myself.

First line of article "Fox News contributor George Will on Sunday argued that the United States Supreme Court had inadvertently made President Barack Obama's health care reform law unconstitutional when the justices ruled that it was not unconstitutional "

So, Subby, please accept my sincere appology for my knee jerk reaction to your headline.  I am now going to try to actually read the article to see what George was trying to say.


That  might hurt a bit.
 
2014-04-23 03:23:51 PM  
I'm just curious, does anyone know the Congressional GOP's position on Obamacare? I'm just asking because it seems like by now they could have held some kind of vote to repeal it, if only as a symbolic gesture.

I know some people would say such a symbolic vote would be a waste of time. All I'm saying is that once, just for symbolism, would help clarify their position. There's no reason they'd have to do it like 50 times or anything. That would just be stupid.
 
2014-04-23 03:24:40 PM  
I do like watching conservatives say the conservative-majority SCOTUS got something wrong because it's not pleasing to their rhetoric.

The ACA is a constitutional law. Let's maintain three threads a day talking about how butthurt people are regarding this fact.
 
2014-04-23 03:26:05 PM  

give me doughnuts: AliceBToklasLives: Mitch Taylor's Bro: ristst: Mitch Taylor's Bro: What if it's unconstitutional, but improves the lives of millions of people anyway?

That would depend on who gets the improvements.

Good point. I was thinking millions of poor people who lacked health care insurance due to financial or pre-existing conditions (or pre-existing financial conditions), but I suppose it could improve the lives of millionsthousands of health care insurance company executives and investors, too.

I want to own a business where I get paid by people who don't require my service while those who do require that service get said service paid for by the government.  The government takes almost all the risk and I take almost all the profits.

Then blame George Will and his ilk. If not for them, we would have the universal single-payer system that we've already been paying for.


No, blame these guys. Senate Democrats that had the swing votes to pass a 'public option' but refused.

static3.businessinsider.com
www.ncadvertiser.com
 
2014-04-23 03:27:55 PM  

StopLurkListen: www.ncadvertiser.com


Lieberman may be a toolbag, but he was just doing the bidding of all the insurance companies based in Hartford. Definite constituency service above and beyond the call of duty.
 
2014-04-23 03:29:38 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: give me doughnuts: It seems that the laws governing Social Security have never been amended of updated since 1935.

They have.


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-23 03:31:48 PM  

give me doughnuts: Dusk-You-n-Me: give me doughnuts: It seems that the laws governing Social Security have never been amended of updated since 1935.

They have.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 631x300]


/shame
 
2014-04-23 03:32:58 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Soup4Bonnie: Tricky Chicken: I am now going to try to actually read the article to see what George was trying to say.

Prepare for stupidity.  And here's the rebuttal you will need to fight that stupidity:

kidgenius: The PPACA was attached as an amendment to a previously existing revenue-generating bill that had already originated in the House. The Senate is perfectly free to propose amendments to bills, per the exact same origination clause.

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

Yeah, I read that too.  This all delves way to far into constitutional law minutae for my comfort zone.  I prefer to stick to sompler constitutional questions like ''How do 'under god' and 'in god we trust' not establish religion?"  Personally I live under ceiling cat and I trust in my goalie.


How can something that cannot be sold across state lines and is regulated by the various states be covered under the commerce clause?
 
2014-04-23 03:33:11 PM  

Herb Utsmelz: I run master control at a Fox affiliate and have to sit through FNS every week.  Fortunately there's a mute switch.  Too bad I can't mute it over the air.

-I've thought about it.



Ahhhh...memories....

When I was stationed in Germany I worked at a radio site that housed the retransmitter for AFN-TV, it took in the microwave signal out of Frankfurt and rebroadcast it for TV reception.  It was possible to turn off either the picture or the sound being broadcast from that unit.  We used to have all kinds of fun exercising editorial control over the local broadcast.

My personal favorite was the anti drug commercials that ended with "If you have a friend who uses drugs, do them a favor.  Turn them on to life."  I'd kill the sound right after the word "on".

Shutting off the picture during live broadcasts of stateside sports was also fun.
 
2014-04-23 03:48:05 PM  
A whole thread about George Will and not one mention of him being a racist.  You guys are slipping.
 
2014-04-23 03:49:08 PM  
"That makes you a liberal," Will said, explaining that no one drives a 1935 car or watches a 1935 television set anymore, but liberals want Social Security to remain the same as it was when instituted in 1935.

.This is absurd on its face because Social Security has changed quite a bit since it was enacted into law in 1935.  Social Security has not remained the same since 1935.  Try again George and this time be accurate.
 
2014-04-23 03:59:02 PM  

StopLurkListen: No, blame these guys. Senate Democrats that had the swing votes to pass a 'public option' but refused.

[static3.businessinsider.com image 850x637]
[www.ncadvertiser.com image 620x462]


Republicans....Democrats....Independents.....

One consistency between all of them is a prerequisite requirement to have an eminently punchable face.
 
2014-04-23 04:01:04 PM  

SunsetLament: Also the "it's a tax law and the law did not originate in the House so it is unconstitutional" argument has been around and discussed since before it was actually voted on.  Personally, I think it's worth discussing, but ultimately not something the Supreme Court would ever touch with a 100 foot pole because they hardly ever rule on congressional procedure issues.  This is nothing new.


Yeah, but that's it's not a congressional procedure issue.  The constitution says that bills that raise revenue (taxes) have to be introduced in the House first.  It's pretty clear on that (Article I, Section 7).

That is, he might actually have a point here-except the fact that the Senate took a revenue bill that was passed by the House, completely gutted it, and turned that into the "Obamacare" bill, and this particular type of legislative trickery is considered constitutional.
 
2014-04-23 04:08:29 PM  

ristst: StopLurkListen: No, blame these guys. Senate Democrats that had the swing votes to pass a 'public option' but refused.

[static3.businessinsider.com image 850x637]
[www.ncadvertiser.com image 620x462]

Republicans....Democrats....Independents.....

One consistency between all of them is a prerequisite requirement to have an eminently punchable face.


The important thing is, you've found a way to feel superior to all of them.
 
2014-04-23 04:13:48 PM  

runwiz: "That makes you a liberal," Will said, explaining that no one drives a 1935 car or watches a 1935 television set anymore, but liberals want Social Security to remain the same as it was when instituted in 1935.

.This is absurd on its face because Social Security has changed quite a bit since it was enacted into law in 1935.  Social Security has not remained the same since 1935.  Try again George and this time be accurate.


Major Changes from 1935 to 1936

http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/crs9436.pdf 

Table of Contents

1939 Amendments
1950 Amendments
1952 Amendments
1954 Amendments
1956 Amendments
1958 Amendments
1960 Amendments
1961 Amendments
1965 Amendments
1966 Amendments
1967 Amendments
1969 Amendments
1971 Amendments
1972 Amendments
1973 Amendments
1977 Amendments
1980 Amendments
198 1 Amendments
1983 Amendments
1984 Amendments
1985 Legislation
1986 Amendments
1987 Amendments
1989 Amendments
1990 Amendments
1993 Amendments
1994 Amendments
1996 Amendments
 
2014-04-23 04:20:10 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Mitch Taylor's Bro: ristst: Mitch Taylor's Bro: What if it's unconstitutional, but improves the lives of millions of people anyway?

That would depend on who gets the improvements.

Good point. I was thinking millions of poor people who lacked health care insurance due to financial or pre-existing conditions (or pre-existing financial conditions), but I suppose it could improve the lives of millionsthousands of health care insurance company executives and investors, too.

I want to own a business where I get paid by people who don't require my service while those who do require that service get said service paid for by the government.  The government takes almost all the risk and I take almost all the profits.


I was including investors, so I stand by the millions part. :P
 
2014-04-23 04:23:27 PM  
Ol' George is just phoning it in nowadays. Lazy "If Obama is for it, I'm against it" arguments that sell to the masses and the party bosses.
 
2014-04-23 04:25:13 PM  

mrshowrules: A whole thread about George Will and not one mention of him being a racist.  You guys are slipping.


C'mon now. Some of his best friends are black baseball players
 
2014-04-23 04:35:01 PM  

qorkfiend: The important thing is, you've found a way to feel superior to all of them.


+1
 
2014-04-23 04:36:00 PM  
When you hear George Will talk about baseball he's great.

When you hear George Will talk about politics, you wish he started talking about baseball again.
 
2014-04-23 04:38:31 PM  

Rapmaster2000: [www.blogcdn.com image 580x350]


I'm guessing he's not at a football game?
 
2014-04-23 04:42:42 PM  

Geotpf: SunsetLament: Also the "it's a tax law and the law did not originate in the House so it is unconstitutional" argument has been around and discussed since before it was actually voted on.  Personally, I think it's worth discussing, but ultimately not something the Supreme Court would ever touch with a 100 foot pole because they hardly ever rule on congressional procedure issues.  This is nothing new.

Yeah, but that's it's not a congressional procedure issue.  The constitution says that bills that raise revenue (taxes) have to be introduced in the House first.  It's pretty clear on that (Article I, Section 7).

That is, he might actually have a point here-except the fact that the Senate took a revenue bill that was passed by the House, completely gutted it, and turned that into the "Obamacare" bill, and this particular type of legislative trickery is considered constitutional.


That's what i meant by "congressional procedure".
 
2014-04-23 04:57:43 PM  

SunsetLament: He's saying that today's Democrats are the ones who are actually conservative on Social Security because they don't want any changes to it whatsoever; while the Republicans have advocated a liberal approach because they want to tinker with it. Will is saying that the Democrats have essentially said that "What was put in place 80 years ago should never, ever be changed" and that is conservative.


The opposite of liberal is not conservative.  The opposite of liberal is reactionary.  The Plutocrat Party is reactionary.
 
2014-04-23 05:09:46 PM  

Sgt Otter: Shostie: ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

[24.media.tumblr.com image 496x740]

"Yes."

"A neck tattoo used to say "Watch out, motherfarker." Now it says "I'd love to read you a poem about my vegan bicycle!""


Ok that's funny right there.
 
2014-04-23 05:45:01 PM  
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
 
2014-04-23 05:50:39 PM  
"I don't find him all that bright." - Kramer
 
2014-04-23 05:55:19 PM  

Rwa2play: When you hear George Will talk about baseball he's great.

When you hear George Will talk about politics, you wish he started talking about baseball again.


ooo!  just like Olbermann!
 
2014-04-23 06:16:15 PM  

Pocket Ninja: George Will is entirely correct, but he's failing to account for one critical fact: Obama was elected without actually being a United States citizen. This in itself invalidated the Constitution, which means that Obamacare cannot, from a strictly legalistic sense, be unconstitutional.


I don't know if I should facepalm or laugh.  I'll settle for a WTF while laughing.
 
2014-04-23 06:20:39 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.lolwtfcomics.com image 496x596]


HEY!  That's my job around here.
img.chan4chan.com
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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