StrangeSox

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 09:35 AM) I think you are pushing the envelope a bit with the conspiracy thing, I don't think they made it big and complex for that reason. It was big and complex because it is f***ing Congress. You are certainly right that the Dems will say that - that the GOP now "owns" health care, that they actively worked to reinstate lifetime limits and pre-existing condition requirements. And they will be right, sort of. Both parties COULD have come to a way of eliminating those, without the mandate, if they wanted to. Congress is just too much a clusterf*** to pull it off. I don't know how you do that without the mandate or without a significantly more progressive bill than what was passed.

No, other parts, like reformation of Indian health care policies or something like that.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) Sort of. It certainly does make the law difficult to implement in some aspects. But that is for Congress to repair. It is for SCOTUS to find and determine problematic aspects of the law, not to remove dozens of related legislative items because in their subjective view it makes the law less effective. FWIW parts of the law are sustainable, parts aren't. Ginsburg got into that during oral arguments.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 29, 2012 -> 07:35 AM) Ok...I'm going to be the first "white guy" to say it aloud now...because it's reached the point of cliche. Regardless of your race, religion or tribal affiliation, if you weren't already wearing a "hoodie" and carrying an Ice Tea (like Lostfan), on twitter, on facebook, on the news, in public, or elsewhere in order to make a statement...stop and don't bother. It's a bandwagon of "look at me" now, and you missed your opportunity to be original. Thank you for your time. -The Cliche Police The Daily Show did a good job of making fun of the media over this.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 28, 2012 -> 09:41 PM) it's not necessary. They appear to be saying in their arguments that it's necessary to make the other requirements like guaranteed coverage work.

that's what I was going for but I am also not a wordsmith.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 28, 2012 -> 09:06 PM) going through 2500 pages line by line and ruling on each thing is ridiculous. all or nothing. if congress wants, they can pass it again, but without the part that is unconstitutional. call it a tax and be done with it. But if the other parts are constitutional, as the court seems to be saying, and the mandate is necessary and proper to carry out those other constitutional regulations....

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 28, 2012 -> 09:04 PM) does that cartoon offend you, StrangeSox? It offends my sensibilities as someone who hates terrible political cartoons.

Cracked with another great piece, this time on misogyny in the modern world: http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-way...hate-women.html

University of Texas Student Paper Wins ‘Most Racist Trayvon Martin Cartoon’ Contest You know someone is a skilled cartoonist when they explicitly label things like "THE MEDIA"

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 28, 2012 -> 12:29 PM) If people want to be treated equally as intelligent human beings, perhaps they should drop the "sins of the father" act. the sins of the father echo in the present.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 28, 2012 -> 10:42 AM) I understand your frustration, and it is lame that there is a double standard that we face, but I think this is probably one of those prices the historically oppressive group has to pay (and is not going to receive a whole lot of pity for). ding ding ding ding ding.

We need more people to fight back against dangerous hoodlums carrying skittles and tea! Arm everyone!

Cinna=cinnamon=persian or arab in my mind but it isn't right or wrong.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 07:52 PM) Indeed. This is hilariously awful. Cut the sports programs and spend the money on academics instead, something they are actually good at instead of perennial embarrassments

That the text explicitly says she is dark-skinned provides humor to the disgusting racism of the comments. If the book was race-ambiguous, why is it such a terrible thing for her to be black?

lol@Illinois

How could anyone possibly manage that?

Rand Paul: Instead of punishing them, you should want to encourage them. I would think you would want to say to the oil companies, “What obstacles are there to you making more money?” And hiring more people. Instead they say, “No, we must punish them. We must tax them more to make things fair.” This whole thing about fairness is so misguided and gotten out of hand... “We as a society need to glorify those who make a profit,” Paul concluded.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 05:18 PM) That just highlights the problem. If there were 5 liberal justices on the panel, Gore would have been president...and that's JUST as wrong, IMO, as what happened. Not necessarily. What would have happened is that the recounts in Florida would have continued. When the decision was made it looked likely that Gore would win, but further review indicated that it wasn't as clear. However, the ruling specifically halted the recount and handed the Presidency to Bush. They could not have done the same for Gore, and they really, really had to stretch the definition of "logic" to reach the conclusions they did while admitting so at the same time.

It's never digressing to bring up just how terrible Bush v Gore was in a discussion of the modern court.

lol watching the daily show's coverage from last night. Great job on the media inserting itself into the story, especially with John Oliver and Wyatt Cynac.

But deeper philosophies form your political ideologies, and these same beliefs are going to impact your jurisprudence. that doesn't mean you're necessarily politically biased in your decisions, though.

These f***ers always get away