ABC News hides Michelle’s ignorance “to save time”
You probably heard that Michelle Obama told ABC News that teenager Hadiya Pendleton was gunned down in Chicago by an automatic weapon a few weeks ago. ABC News knew that was inaccurate and edited out the line to camouflage the First Lady’s blatant ignorance of gun functions – the Chicago police admit that the girl was probably shot with a semi-automatic handgun.
Well, according to our buddy, Emily Miller at the Washington Times, ABC News is claiming that they edited the line out for brevity’s sake;
A spokesman for ABC News, Heather Riley, emailed me that, “The full story was posted to our website in advance of the interview being broadcast. The edits made to Robin’s interview with the First Lady were made solely for time.”
I read the missing words out loud, and it took me seven seconds.
The Chicago police suspect that the shooter in the teen’s death was a gang member and it’s unlikely that a scum bag like that couldn’t afford the tens of thousands of dollars and layers of bureaucracy required to get an automatic weapon.
But, that’s what the Obama Administration and ABC News gets for dragging someone into the “national discussion” on firearms control who has no business discussing a subject they don’t understand. Mrs. Obama should stick to talking about her bangs and her $9000 dress at the Oscars. Maybe get me a sandwich, too.
February 27th, 2013 at 11:32 am
Jonn, don’t ask her to get you a sandwich. It will be vegetarian with whole grain bread and no cheese.
February 27th, 2013 at 11:37 am
I don’t mind the whole or multi grain bread. But the rest. . . . . . . . (shudder).
February 27th, 2013 at 11:40 am
What the LSDM have devolved to sounds like one of the riddles from “The Hobbit”.
Q: When is the news NOT the news?
A: When it’s told (not reported) by the LSDM.
LSDM=Lame Stream Dinosaur Media
February 27th, 2013 at 11:41 am
Surely, surely the media wouldn’t commit such a flagrant ommission would they? Why am I not surprised, the ass pimples in the media really do think we’re stupid and can’t think for ourselves and swallow their bullshit…they don’t get it, they never will.
February 27th, 2013 at 11:43 am
NR, DON’T FORGET some organic arugula to go with that, or at least for her to pose with before she goes behind the curtain to pig out on ribs and whatever else she chooses!
I still remember the left’s propaganda rampage in the late 80′s/early 90′s against semi-auto firearms stemming from the alleged easiness of making an Uzi or a Mac into a full Auto. I watched a local TV Station’s interview (Springfield, MO) with a BATF Agent who they said had 20+ years with the Bureaus, and when he was asked what the most popular and most often found illegal automatic weapon was, he said “Stolen US Government weapons.”. You could see the expression on the reporter’s face as his bubble popped!
February 27th, 2013 at 11:57 am
I’m sure when NBC edited Zimmerman’s 911 call about Travon Martin
to make him look racist and incite a riotit was about saving time too…..February 27th, 2013 at 12:03 pm
What does that silly woman ever say that is truly important?
February 27th, 2013 at 12:07 pm
Personally, I do not trust the current aristocracy in Washington right now. We the lowly serfs should not have to think for ourselves because it is better if they think for us, instead.
Well, I remember a little story from history about a time in France like that and it didn’t end well for the queen. Then again, it didn’t end well for anyone who was in charge.
February 27th, 2013 at 12:19 pm
Is anyone surprised that the MSM covers up for this administration so they don’t look like bigger doofuses.
February 27th, 2013 at 12:27 pm
I heard something incredibly scary last night and that this seemingly random propaganda maneuver for the Oscars was the beginning of a Michele Obama president campaign. At first I thought that is crazy talk, but then I remembered Barack Obama’s presidential campaign organization still exists and is already in full swing raising funds for who knows what.
February 27th, 2013 at 12:34 pm
Funny how the part where she says, “…she was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need” would have actually fit into the narrative the gun grabbers have been pushing lately.
No surprise here.
February 27th, 2013 at 12:45 pm
Amazing how they don’t even try to hide their blatant bias anymore.
February 27th, 2013 at 12:53 pm
@10 I read an article a couple of weeks ago that talked about “Obama’s third term.” Maybe that’s what they meant.
February 27th, 2013 at 12:57 pm
How about the existing Gun Control Laws already in place that were violated by those gangster vermin? Oh, wait, silly me, laws are only for us peasants. One thing is for sure, today’s mainstream mess media is to B. Hussein 0bama & Party what Pravda was to the Soviet Politburo & Communist Party!
February 27th, 2013 at 1:11 pm
A President who looks at the citizens of this country as subjects to be ruled over shouldn’t be the President.
February 27th, 2013 at 1:20 pm
Here’s an idea: mandatory minimum 25 year sentences with no parole for any felon using a firearm in the commission of a felony. Mandatory life sentences with no possibility of parole for anyone convicted of murder. I think these two absurdly simple changes in the justice system would do more than an “assault weapons” ban and the already-useless handgun ban to make the Windy City look a little less like Harare.
February 27th, 2013 at 1:45 pm
@16 – Lots of people prefer mandatory sentencing guidelines for certain offenses. You almost forgot asset forfeiture, though.
February 27th, 2013 at 4:02 pm
I’m sick and tired of this bullshit talking point that if you’re not a balistic expert you’re not entitled to an opinion about guns (or weapons if there’s a drill instructor present- mmm kay?).
Off the top of my head, here’s stories that Jonn reported about in which he got MAJOR facts wrong which he could of gotten right had he just done a modicum of research:
1. Jonn Reported incorrectly that the court case giving gay soldiers benefits who were honorably discharged involved soldiers “telling” their superiors about their sexuality. He really delighted in telling all of you rubes how they should of “kept it to themeselves”. Unfortunately, they did keep it to themeselves. The plaintiff was “caught” at a stop light, in plain clothes, while not on duty, ten miles from base, kissing his boyfriend. The people that gnarked weren’t even soldiers but civilian base workers.
2. Jonn reported that the Obama administration was filing suit to disalow soldiers from early voting (even Redstate called bullshit on that one).
In BOTH cases all Jonn had to do was read the suit to not look like an idiot but he was too goddamn lazy.
So Jonn is about the last person in the world who should accuse anyone else of ignorance for failing to use the word “semi”.
February 27th, 2013 at 4:07 pm
So, Jonn, what you are saying in so many words is that ABC News denied Michele obama’s Kerry-given right to be stupid.
February 27th, 2013 at 4:22 pm
What’s especially hysterical about this insistance on getting every word right is the fact that for eight years many of you defended to the death George W. Bush who couldn’t speak in complete sentences without pulling a groin muscle.
February 27th, 2013 at 4:31 pm
Typical, Sippy – no good argument to make, so you attack the messenger. You can provide verifiable references to back up your claims above that Jonn “got it wrong”, right? ‘Cause I for one would love to see those references.
Furhter: George W. Bush has been shown – based on his SAT and John Kerry’s ASVAB scores, which have both been proven to be a reliable indicator of IQ – to have an estimated IQ that is roughly 5 to 10 points higher than Kerry. Specifically, Bush comes in at 95th percentile, while Kerry comes in at approximately 91st. That’s also coming from a source you should find credible – the NYT.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html
You were aware of that, right?
February 27th, 2013 at 4:33 pm
What’s that buzzing sound?
February 27th, 2013 at 4:43 pm
So, insipid, what’s your view on actually enforcing the laws we have?
February 27th, 2013 at 4:43 pm
Typical Hondo, denying that i have a good argument simply because I said it. Do the research yourself- you’ll see that Jonn got the facts of those cases wrong. It’s not too hard to look up a brief on two major court cases. Even you can do it. Even redstate said that the Obama campaign wasn’t trying to deny soldiers the right to early vote. They’re not credible anymore?
My guess is that both Michelle and President Obama would test considerably higher than either Bush or Kerry. But the point of this article is that Michelle got a word wrong and that’s supposed to prove something. In terms of getting words wrong Bush FAR surpasses any President since Coolidge. Even Bush would probably acknowlege that. Hell the man did a whole correspondence dinner routine just listing his flubs!
My point is valid. You’re very forgiving of mistakes- providing a Conservative makes them.
February 27th, 2013 at 4:44 pm
2/17 Air Cav: probably just our very own member of nature’s clean-up crew, musca domestica, who shows up here periodically. Flits around, annoys people for a while, stirs up some crap, and then leaves when he has a bellyfull.
February 27th, 2013 at 4:44 pm
@22- The air passing through your skull.
February 27th, 2013 at 4:45 pm
Gaaaaaaaaaaaaad damit. There it is again.
February 27th, 2013 at 4:46 pm
Not my job to prove your claim, Sip the Pin. Your claim, you provide the proof. Otherwise, this latest claim will be filed with all your other unsupported bogus claims and given precisely the credence that all such claims deserve: nada.
Frankly, I’m guessing you’re full of it. A person who actually had the proof for their claims would post it. You never do.
February 27th, 2013 at 4:55 pm
@25- Oh you love me. If i didn’t exist you’d have to make me up. You live for arguing this shit and you know it. I have a full time job, a small business i’m trying to get off the ground and a (minute) social life AND i’m taking classes. I leave cause I have other shit to do.
But- and this is a sincere compliment- if i were to be perfeclty honest i also leave cause Conservatives are- much more committed to defending their positions then Liberals. I honestly do wish i had your zeal Hondo. Just after a while i go “meh”. As far as i know you never do that. That really is comendable. You don’t give up and that’s why you win even when your numbers are smaller. I wish that liberals would learn that simple lesson, but it seems to escape them. When you call liberals “spineless”, i am too often agreeing.
February 27th, 2013 at 4:57 pm
Not even a good attempt at misdirection/changing the subject, Sippy.
Do you actually have proof of your claims, or are you blowing it out of your 4th point of contact again?
February 27th, 2013 at 4:59 pm
@28- If you’re saying i got a fact wrong it is “your job” to prove that i did. I read the briefs. You didn’t. I am right about this. Anyway, i have a class at 5:30. And i have a take-home quiz i’m avoiding by being here. Arguing with you is more fun than coding exercises- go figure.
I may provide a link to the cases later.
February 27th, 2013 at 5:01 pm
@20, Actually to my thinking there is no insistence on getting every word right but a question as to why to save seven seconds those particular words were eliminated making the statement a correct one instead of an incorrect one.
I would not believe that any such deference in saving seven seconds of airtime would involve editing a GW Bush speech to correct a statement versus using an extra 7 seconds to highlight an incorrect one.
I understand that speakers are constantly fumbling with words when they are using tens of thousands of them publicly per week.
To me ABC is more than a bit disingenuous in trying to have anyone believe that it was a “time saving” technique that only by pure unadulterated accident corrected an error in the First Lady’s speech. I’m actually okay with accepting the idea that the First Lady might have mis-spoke herself on this issue, but I do believe that ABC is full of sh1t with their explanation as to why those particular words were edited out. They clearly have no problem leaving the mis-spoken words of the people who hold an ideological view that diverges from their own in place for all to hear. If you are giving deference for mis-spoken words it should be all around, this entire thing is on ABC as far as I am concerned as I do not expect the First Lady’s opinions to be relevant to the national discussion regardless of her party affiliation. Her opinions matter no more to me than any other non-elected talking head as she does not represent the electorate in any capacity.
February 27th, 2013 at 5:10 pm
Sippy, Sippy – you’re the one claiming someone erred, not me. Specifically: you claimed above that Jonn made two major errors of fact. Making such a claim implies you can prove the claim. I’m merely asking you to back up your claim with a verifiable reference.
I would think someone who claims to have worked for a legal firm in the past would understand the concept of “burden of proof” as regards a claim of error on the part of another. If you make such a claim, in general it is up to you to provide proof of your side of the story. Otherwise, all you’ve done is make an unsupported allegation.
Frankly, I have no idea if you’re correct or not, nor even what specific incident you’re talking about (you don’t exactly provide a reference there, either). And I won’t until you provide proof you’re right – or until someone provides proof you’re wrong.
But based on past claims you’ve made that turned out to be bogus – I have a right to be suspicious. You have a rather poor track record regarding being willing or able to back your claims when challenged.
Bottom line: I won’t hold my breath waiting for you to come through on this one. Maybe you’ll surprise me.
February 27th, 2013 at 5:24 pm
Oh, like claiming that SS is a Ponzi scheme and not being able to prove ONE element of fraud?
Or was it the time that you said that the affordable care act would be upheld as a tax and i scoffed at you?
Or was it the time that i said Kerry was about to have Reagan like upsurge the week before the election?
Oh wait, no, i’m sorry, that was YOU that got those whoppers wrong. My bad. See? I do admit mistakes.
Plus even if i do find the original posts and also give the links tot he cases you’ll just move the goal posts as you are wont to do. You’ll then say that i must prove my expertise by translating the cased in Latin or something.
But why don’t YOU find the supposedly bogus claims that I made and THEN find links that prove TO ME that i am irrefutably wrong. And then get back to me.
February 27th, 2013 at 5:38 pm
Sippy, do you try to be a thin-skinned fool, or does it come to you naturally?
February 27th, 2013 at 5:46 pm
If i were “thin skinned” i’d never come here.
February 27th, 2013 at 5:57 pm
@33- Hondo, better yet Hondo if you can answer THIS question not only will i admit that I was wrong about everything i ever said, well, ever, but I’ll even call Barack Obama a liberal fascist with homosexual tendencies and *gasp* a gungrabber!
The very relevant political question is:
What is the icd-10-pcs code for open fusion of the lumbosacral joint using autologous bone graft, harvested from the right iliac crest using a posterior approach, anterior column.
If you can give me the harvest code i’ll even listen to Rush for a whole hour while constantly shouting “DITTO!”.
Yes, i can be bought.
February 27th, 2013 at 6:15 pm
Insipid, I believe the code you’re looking for is: 0SG307J
And how is that a relevant political question?
February 27th, 2013 at 6:19 pm
lol icd codes
February 27th, 2013 at 6:34 pm
I think it would be a seriously good idea if you actually READ the quote from Mrs. O:
“And she was caught in the line of fire because some kids had some automatic weapons they didn’t need,” she said.
Some kids?
Even in Chicago, “kids” don’t have weapons unless they are gang members. Common sense and residence in that city tells you that.
I don’t give a crap about whether or not the term referring to the weapon used is correct. That is a moot point to me.
I’m far more disturbed by this very dim-witted statement from someone whose residence is on the south side of Chicago and ought to fracking no better than to make a public statement that the shooters were SOME KIDS, when she knows bloody well that they were not.
No KIDS will jump the fence to a public park and open fire on a bunch of girls under a rain shelter unless they are gang members.
What this says about Mrs. BO is that she’s giving lip service and nothing else to a real problem in Chicago. There is not one molecule of substance to her so-called sympathy when she makes a stupid remark like this, and I don’t give a flying fart in space how many funeral she shows up for. It means nothing, other than a photo op and chance to do another ‘feel good’.
February 27th, 2013 at 6:39 pm
@37 – Splinky, you make this too easy.
3E0V3GB
February 27th, 2013 at 6:40 pm
@38 It’s not. But if i’m going to have Hondo look shit up, it might as well be for something that actually helps me. Did you get the extra credit? Are you a coder?
(throwd darts at Obama poster).
February 27th, 2013 at 6:45 pm
Sippy my lad: once again you appear to have no valid argument to support your point of view and are instead resorting to irrelevant ad hominem attacks in an attempt to deflect attention from that fact. How droll.
Not even a nice try, sonny. And the attacks were pretty lame, too.
You said that “Kerry was going to to have a Reagan-like upsurge”? Geez, Sippy – can’t you even keep your own story straight? Are you confusing Kerry and Obama, perhaps – or who said what? I’d think the renowned Sippy the Pinhead would be able to tell the two apart, and remember who said what. Maybe not.
Regarding Social Security: seems Paul Krugman agrees with me about Social Security being a Ponzi scheme (I believe having “Ponzi-game elements” were his exact words). I’ll take his word over yours, thanks. He actually seems to know what he’s talking about at least part of the time.
You indeed called part of the ACA decision correctly – but only part, and solely because the decision disregards logic. You’re also misrepresenting my position regarding the ACA.
My position on the ACA was that the health insurance penalty was not properly a tax as written in the ACA and that it would likely fail scrutiny because of that fact. The SCOTUS actually agreed with me on that point, ruling that the ACA “shared responsibility payment” was not a yet-to-be-imposed tax for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act (NFIB v. Sebilius, Syllabus, p. 2) in order to allow the SCOTUS to consider it in the first place (otherwise the SCOTUS would not have been barred from considering it until effective, as suits regarding taxes not yet in effect are barred by the Anti-Injunction Act). The SCOTUS then immediately reversed themselves on this point and ruled that the “shared responsibility payment” was within the taxing power of the Congress and could thus be imposed anyway. In effect, the SCOTUS ruled that the “shared responsibility payment” simultaneously was and was not a tax, and could thus be imposed because it was within Congress’ power to create such a tax – even though they’d ruled earlier in the same opinion that it was not a tax.
The SCOTUS ruling here is inconsistent with both logic and common sense – something either is or is not a tax; it is not simultaneously both a tax and not a tax. However, as various historical cases show (Dred Scott and Buck v. Bell to name two), the SCOTUS occasionally royally blows it respect to using common sense in order to justify a decision it wants to make. The ACHA case is yet another example.
Or maybe Roberts just skipped his meds that day. Who knows.
The fact that Congress had the power to impose a tax to that effect was never in dispute. A much more simple (and indisputably lawful) way of accomplishing the same aim would have been to give a tax credit for medical insurance payments to anyone having private medical insurance up to the amount of the shared responsibility payment. This would have effectively assessed additional taxes on anyone without medical insurance having a taxable income above a given threshold – precisely what the “shared responsibility payment” does.
You’re also conveniently forgetting the fact that the SCOTUS upheld my primary assertion: that the Congress does not have the power to compel anyone to engage in commerce involuntarily. The SCOTUS explicitly ruled that Congress has no such power under either the Commerce Clause or under the Necessary and Proper Clause (NFIB v. Sebilius, Syllabus, p. 2). As I recall, you rather stridently asserted that Congress did have such power.
Regarding bogus claims you’ve made: any you’ve made about the 2nd Amendment restricting the right of firearms ownership to members of the military reserve components are demonstrably bogus, based on US colonial-era historical usage of the term, Federal law contemporary with the Bill of Rights, and current Federal law. And your claims that no one ever publicly offered a reward for Zimmerman “dead or alive” were proven to be BS as well. That’s two; do I need to go on?
Try again, youngster. And do your own homework.
February 27th, 2013 at 7:44 pm
Hondo, why do we keep having this ridiculous argument about the Second Amendment?
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
I think it is plainly worded and specifically says “the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.”
Nowhere does it say or imply that the right to keep and bear arms is restricted to the military or the ‘militia’.
That’s WE, the PEOPLE of the United States, not the MILITARY.
What is so difficult to understand about plain English?
Oh, BTW – now that splinky has a job as a medical billing clerk, maybe we’ll hear less out of him.
February 27th, 2013 at 7:52 pm
On any given day in Chicago, more “kids” are ripped from their mothers wombs than the total number of deaths by any other means in the whole damn country. But that’s okay. It’s women exercising their Supreme Court constructed Constitutional right. But exercise a right actually found in the Constitution (e.g., 2nd Amendment) and you are a beast, a slayer of children.
February 27th, 2013 at 8:14 pm
I’m still a paralegal, Ex-PH2. I’m taking classes to get my RHIT. I do not have it yet.
I mean to say Romney when i was ribbing you, Hondo. You said Kerry and the wires got crossed. Internet taunts work MUCH better when you get the nouns right.
I only got three hours sleep last night and i visit this site sometimes to keep myself awake. There is a small part of me that’s like “Oh MY GOD! There’s somebody WRONG on the internet! I MUST stop this!”
I’m still at the school Hondo, so i don’t have a chance to go into a big thing. I can’t respond at home as my computer is in the shop due to my running it over (at least you can now make fun of me for something that’s real rather than making up fictitious fast food jobs i supposedly have- and my side business? Writing copy for a porn site! There that’s two things! See? I’m a giver!).
But in a very quick nutshell, here’s where you’re wrong:
The decision did not say most of what you said it did. What the decision stated was that there are two different standards for two different statutes- a reality not uncommon in law. The one statute decides whether or not a court can hear a case and the other is to decide whether or not something meets the definition of a tax. Generally if Congress CALLS it a tax then there’s no ambiguity and the court does NOT get to hear it. In this case, ambiguity was created because they called it a penalty and therefore the court had to step in to determine what the hell it was.
But different standards for different statutes is by no means unusual in law. It’s certainly not a case of Roberts being “off his meds”.
February 27th, 2013 at 9:06 pm
Actually, Sippy-boy – the SCOTUS decision says exactly what I said it did. From the case itself (Syllabus, p. 2), regarding the “shared responsibility fee”:
“The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person,” 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individual mandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit.”
However, later the opinion goes on to state (Syllabus, p. 4):
“Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibilitypayment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax.”
In layman’s terms: the SCOTUS is saying is that the “shared responsibility” is not a tax, so we can consider it; but on further consideration we rule that it is for Constitutional purposes a de facto tax and thus lawful. Such deliberate illogical doublespeak is precisely why the vast majority of the US population views the profession of law with suspicion if not distain. Here, the SCOTUS logically and obviously contradicted themselves. The logic in the decision is circular, and thus is invalid.
It’s not the first time the SCOTUS has made such a boneheaded legal ruling. See Buck v. Bell for an even better example; there, Constitutional (and basic human) rights were callously disregarded by the SCOTUS simply because it was convenient for them to do so.
Now, regarding the individual mandate’s Constitutionality – again, from the decision itself (Syllabus, p. 2):
“CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. pp. 16-30.”
‘Nuff on those points.
February 27th, 2013 at 9:34 pm
Sippy: internet taunts also work better if you not only get the names right, but also attribute who said what originally to the correct person. You goofed on that above, too – you attributed the surge comment about “Kerry” to yourself. (smile)
February 27th, 2013 at 9:39 pm
Spiffy, are you kidding me?
You’re going to give up a job as a paralegal that has a pay scale range from $35,000 to $82,000 in DC, $30,000 to $72,000 in Chicago to take up a registered health information tech position that pays someone with no experience $26,000 to (high end) $46,000, if you’re lucky? (Chicago wages and Chitown is the higher end of the economic scale in wages.)
You can’t be serious. Even in Ohio, paralegals get better pay than an RHIT, for pete’s sake. You can always migrate to a better-paying environment, too. Or were you suckered in by that job in Canton that pays $53,000? That requires serious experience, not a novice. Some of those jobs require that the candidate be a registered nurse, also.
February 28th, 2013 at 12:48 am
Ex-PH2,
They aren’t paying that much for paralegals or Health information techs. Right now I know JDs that are barely making 35K starting. My wife turned down an associate position in Chicago a few years ago that was offering her 42K because she was making more here in KC. The legal field has even taken a hit in this economy so unless Sippy knows someone… Maybe Sippy has a lead on a job as an “expert witness” that my wife can rip apart on a case.
February 28th, 2013 at 1:18 am
Sippy every time you come on here you get indignant and stamp your feet and huff puff. You really don’t have a lot to say. How about this crazy thing when it comes to some subjects, some individuals should just remain silent. I know a few things just well enough to not sound like a complete idiot when I talk about them, you unfortunately think you know a lot about subjects you know very little to nothing about. I go straight for the insults when I talk to people like you because it is easier than wasting time and playing games. If we were face to face in engaged in a debate you would make a classic error and underestimate me, which I play up many times. Now in the case that we are talking about here with Michelle Obama. Many people assume she knows what she is talking about because she happens to be married to the President. Well unfortunately she doesn’t. Unfortunately, for the country ABC has covered up the mistake. If the media doesn’t do its job and report unbiased news then people will have to go elsewhere to get it. That is where people like Jonn and TSO come in. The do a pretty good job of reporting what the see fit to report, but they aren’t journalists they are bloggers. Do they have the same ethical standards as the press? No, but I do think that they hold themselves to a higher standard when it comes to stories. What they are simply doing here is pointing out what they see as an inconsistency that they see as relevant to their readership. Trust me Sippy there is more going on behind the scenes than you realize. I know that there is more than you flipping burgers…
Oh and by the way on a side note, which liberty limiting principles do you subscribe to?
February 28th, 2013 at 8:31 am
My guess is that both Michelle and President Obama would test considerably higher than either Bush or Kerry.
I’m guessing you’d be wrong. But then again, that’s all it is–a guess. Maybe if our boy Elroy would release his college transcripts, financial records, etc., we’d be able to put that bad boy to rest once and for all, now wouldn’t we?
And before you criticize Bush and his seeming inability to string a coherent sentence together, turn off Obama’s teleprompter and stand by for the fucking hilarity to commence.
February 28th, 2013 at 8:33 am
If you’re saying i got a fact wrong it is “your job” to prove that i did.
Um, no. Kinda like court–you make the claim, you provide the evidence to support said claim. Then again, you know the logical impossibility of (dis)proving a negative, don’t ya scooter?
February 28th, 2013 at 8:36 am
If i were “thin skinned” i’d never come here.
Well, thin-skinned, thick-headed, same-same. And paralegals who don’t know how to use punctuation and capitalization? Boy, you better hope your customers in that new “startup” of yours don’t know how to read or don’t care…maybe if you’re selling texts to 14-year old girls it might not matter, but here in the real world, people kinda notice that shit and judge accordingly.
February 28th, 2013 at 9:24 am
NHSparky: all that’s really needed is his SAT or ACT scores. Like ASVAB scores, those have been proven to be reliably linked to IQ scores.
He should release the others in the interest of that “transparency” he preaches, too. But I ain’t holding my breath.
February 28th, 2013 at 9:28 am
NHSparky: the burden of proof you describe is as I recall generally the case in civil court. In criminal court, however, Sippy would be correct.
Discussions here are are not criminal proceedings, however, and are thus much more similar to civil court than criminal. Hence Sippy is still out to lunch.
As usual.
February 28th, 2013 at 9:34 am
@21 based on the test scores we got for the current president, his IQ puts him at the ZERO percentile…
February 28th, 2013 at 12:07 pm
@47- If I were going to quote from the case those are pretty much the passages that I would of used. All i can say is that you’re reading the damn thing wrong. They were NOT saying that it is and it isn’t a tax at the same time. They were saying that the wording of Congress in calling it a penalty allows the court to consider the law now rather than after the tax is imposed. From your own passage:
But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a “tax” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a “penalty,” not a “tax.” That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit.”
So the REAL correct way to interpret it is to say that the Anti-injunction act has ONE standard and the Constitution has another standard in the determination of what is and isn’t a tax. Because the Congress called it a “Penalty” and not a “tax” the court is allowed to consider it.
The reason why the anti-injunction act exists is because people were at one time abusing the court system in order to get out of paying taxes. They’d simply sue whenever a new tax came into being and then be able to avoid paying it- perhaps for years until it meandered its way through the courts. The anti-injunction act allows the state and feds to collect revenue while the plaintiff is suing.
Now, just because they call it a tax, does not necessarily make it a tax. There was one case in which they DID call it a tax and for the purposes of the anti-injunction act the plaintiff was barred from suit. When it came to court they determined that the penalty was so severe and so directed that it was really a fine and not a tax, so the guys money was refunded. But because of the anit-injunction act the guy was barred from suing until after he payed. But in order for Congress to enjoy the benefits of revenue without the worry of a suit, they have to “invoke” the AIA by going through the trouble of CALLING it a tax. It can’t be used to bar suits against ALL attempts to collect revenue.
Again, different standards different results. No inconsistency in logic.
Actually, the one who was “off his meds” was Scalia. Clearly the PPACA is Constitutional based on all 3 standards. If the commerce clause can be invoked to enforce rules at a single lunch counter in a single state (I actually visited that Woolworth and talked to the waitress who was there at the time) surely it can be invoked to control health insurance which must allow for people to use it across state lines (for practical matters, you can’t buy health insurance every time you vacation or travel to a different state!). Also if Health care does not apply to health and welfare i do not know what would.
The ORIGINAL assessments that this case was frivolous was correct. What changed that opinion was the Courts Fox-News style grilling of the solicitor general. Like in Bush V. Gore, the court was carrying water for the SC. Rather than reporting the truth of the law- that the case was always frivolous they reported the horse race.
Make no mistake- if Romney got elected in 2008 and this were Romneycare and not Obamacare this would be a 9-0 decision. Since Bush V. Gore, the conservatives on the SC have stopped being justices and are now just partisan hacks. Of course, if this were Romneycare no governor would of filed suit int he first place.
As far as my prediction about it being upheld as a tax: I knew it would because there was absolutely NO WAY they could rule otherwise, regardless of what President Obama was saying. The PPACA “penalty” is not greater than the cost of insurance and by law can’t be, therefore it is not prohibitory. It’s not limited to willful violations as penalties are. The “penalty” is determined by the IRS based on income and number of dependents and is enforded by the IRS. And it generates revenue for the Federal Government. I mean, how can anyone view it as anything but a tax? The reason why Congress refused to call it that are two-fold: 1. It is a clear violation of President Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making 250k and 2. The GOP has successfully turned the word tax into a four letter word.
March 1st, 2013 at 1:05 pm
Just for the fun of watching Hondo move the goal posts AGAIN I’ll comply with his earlier requests to back up what I said. So here’s the original thread in which Jonn gets it completely wrong in regards to the Obama team suing to disenfranchise voters:
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=31230
And this is what Jonn got completely wrong in the article:
————————————————————
So, I guess the Democrats aren’t buying that their big push for veterans’ votes this season is going to work, so it’s back to the tried and true disenfranchisement strategy. This is not my shocked face.
————————————————————-
And here’s the link to the actual court case in which you can see that the suit was to allow early voting for EVERYONE and NOT to disenfranchise veterans:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/ObamaForAmericaVHusted.php
And here’s the link to that “liberal rag” Hotair that says the same thing I’m saying:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/ObamaForAmericaVHusted.php
And here’s the case in which he got it completely wrong in the case of gay veterans:
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=33573
Here’s what he wrote:
————————————————————-
I don’t remember the rum-runners getting forgiven for plying their illicit trade after Prohibition ended. All they had to do was keep their mouths shut about their particular sexual preference, and they couldn’t…now they get to cash in on it.
And here’s the facts of the case as outlined in the complaint and stipulated by the defense:
————————————————————-
“The Air Force initiated separation proceedings against Mr. Collins after two civilian co-workers observed him exchange a kiss with his civilian boyfriend. The kiss occurred while Mr. Collins and his boyfriend were in a car stopped at an intersection ten miles off base and while Mr. Collins was off duty and out of uniform.”
————————————————————-
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you can read ALL the legal documents:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/collins-v-united-states-class-action-military-separation-pay
Few, if any of the cases, of people getting honorably discharged but being denied separation money involved folks flaunting it, as Jonn’s original obnoxious and lazy post states. If Jonn had bothered to think for a moment he’d know this. Why would someone serve long enough to get separation pay only to blow it by not keeping their “mouth shut”. There were cases in which soldiers private e-mails were read. Some cases involved being outed by partners after break-ups. But we all know that Jonn supports SOME troops. As long as they’re the “right kind” of troops.
Can’t wait to see how you’ll attempt to wiggle your way out of just admitting that Jonn was talking out of his ass in both cases. My guess is that you’ll tell me to find something more than the legal documents. Or you won’t accept the actual court documents cause I wasn’t doing THIS with my hands. Or you’ll say that i must prove that in EVERY case in which the settlement was paid NO ONE inadvertently mentioned their boyfriend or girlfriend in a conversation. It might be as entertaining as your defense of Woodward.
March 3rd, 2013 at 3:16 pm
Got the hotair link wrong above:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/03/obama-democrats-suing-to-block-military-voting-in-ohio/