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 21
    More: Stupid, George Will, Supreme Court, obamacare, constitutions, d.c. circuit court of appeals, Crooks & Liars, Obamacare unconstitutional  
•       •       •

2354 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»



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


Archived thread
2014-04-23 02:40:18 PM  
6 votes:
Here are some facts:

FTA:   there will be an argument that this is objectively a revenue measure," Will explained. "The Supreme Court said as much, a tax measure."

"It did not originate in the House. And under the standards of origination, the whole thing is unconstitutional," he added. "So this argument, again, is far from over."

HR 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care ActIntroduced:Sep 17, 2009

HR 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:  Senate Vote #396Date:Dec 24, 2009 (111th Congress)

ACA originated in the House on September 17th and passed the Senate on Dec. 24th.  George Will is incorrect on a point of fact.  Will's point is incorrect.
2014-04-23 02:47:21 PM  
2 votes:

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.
2014-04-23 02:43:15 PM  
2 votes:

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


His argument argument in TFA sounded like one of those libertarians saying, because the flag in the courtroom has gold braid on the edges the court is following admiralty law, so when the judge leaves the courtroom they can declare "man overboard!" and then name themselves as presiding judge and dismiss the case against them.

In other words, George, it's going to take more than just *you* declaring the ACA unconstitutional because reasons; you're going to need quite a few people actually in authority agreeing with your sophistry.
2014-04-23 02:38:32 PM  
2 votes:
Actually clicked the article expecting a George Will piece.  I like to scan them to see how many sentences in it takes him to whip out a thesaurus and use a pretentiously big word to make himself sound smart.  It's usually less than 5 sentences...
2014-04-23 01:41:04 PM  
2 votes:
Remember when George Will was a well respected, reasonable conservative?

Yeah, me either.
2014-04-23 01:37:25 PM  
2 votes:
OMG that man is completely insane. Tertiary syphilis? Dementia? Brain tumor?
2014-04-23 01:32:21 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2014-04-23 06:39:32 PM  
1 votes:

runwiz: liberals want Social Security to remain the same as it was when instituted in 1935.


Question:  Would you like Social Security, a program created in 1935, to continue to exist?

Liberals:  Yes please.

George Will: Aha! Liberals want Social Security to remain unchanged since the day it was started in 1935, evar!!!

Liberals:  Um, no, we didn't say that, it can be changed, and has been changed in the past 75+ years, as needed but it should continue, as opposed to being shut down...

George Will:  You want it unchanged! In your face, liberals!   *spikes miniature football, does happydance in yellow golf slacks*
2014-04-23 03:49:08 PM  
1 votes:
"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 03:23:51 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:02:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:57:51 PM  
1 votes:
But I thought the debate on obamacare  was over!?!?!
2014-04-23 02:56:43 PM  
1 votes:

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.


He can suck his thumb and rock off to sleep on the giant pile of hundred dollar bills he's earned being a pompous douchebag.
2014-04-23 02:50:56 PM  
1 votes:

ginandbacon: OMG that man is completely insane. Tertiary syphilis? Dementia? Brain tumor?


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.
2014-04-23 02:42:38 PM  
1 votes:
Ok, for the last time 'pubs....

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."

It's like for every amendment to the US Constitution, they take a highlighter to only the words that they agree with.
2014-04-23 02:40:30 PM  
1 votes:
Are there folks out there who buy this shiat?
2014-04-23 02:39:50 PM  
1 votes:

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


Presumably by the same logic you wouldn't read an 1877 newspaper. I wonder if (one of) his employers would like the idea that old things should be completely scrapped after a while just because they are old?
2014-04-23 02:39:16 PM  
1 votes:
The man is 72. He should have retired by now. Why should we listen to him when he obviously can't manage his own finances.
2014-04-23 02:38:52 PM  
1 votes:

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

I don't even get his argument on that one. He said he doesn't want to get rid of it either, just change it. I'm pretty sure Democrats are open to changing it, though perhaps not in the same ways.

I can't remember the last time I saw him on TV, and I forgot what a joyless twit he comes off as.


Oh, yeah.  Very much THIS.  He came off last night as a monumental asshole.  And when he talked about baseball, it sounded like he was talking about work, not fun.  The few laughs he had were of the "Oh, you simple peon.  You can't understand my genius" variety.
2014-04-23 02:37:08 PM  
1 votes:

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!""
2014-04-23 01:36:06 PM  
1 votes:
www.lolwtfcomics.com
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and 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