Free Markets, Free People


Rule of man, not of law? See ObamaCare (and much else)

Apparently our laws are arbitrary if you’re in a favored group.  All you have to do is appeal to the King for an exemption:

Back in 2009, when Democrats were writing the massive new national health care scheme, Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley offered an amendment. Obamacare created exchanges through which millions of Americans would purchase “affordable” health coverage. Grassley’s amendment simply required lawmakers, staff, and some in the executive branch to get their insurance through the exchanges, too.

To every Republican’s amazement, Democrats accepted the amendment. It’s never been fully clear why; the best theory is they intended to take the provision out in conference committee, but couldn’t do so because they lost their filibuster-proof 60-vote majority. In any event, Obamacare — the law of the land, as supporters like to say — now requires Congress to buy its health care coverage through the exchanges.

That has caused Democratic panic as the formal arrival of Obamacare nears. Right now, all lawmakers and staff are entitled to enjoy generously-subsidized coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits plan. Why give up that subsidy and go on the exchanges like any average American?

But that’s the law. It could be amended, but Democrats, who voted unanimously for Obamacare, couldn’t very well expect much help from Republicans, who voted unanimously against it. So over the summer Democrats asked President Obama to simply create an Obamacare exception for Capitol Hill.

And the King, looking down upon his faithful minions waved his hand and came up with a “solution” by executive fiat that uses tax dollars to circumvent the law:

Not long after — presto! — the Office of Personnel Management unveiled a proposed rule to allow members of Congress, their staff, and some executive branch employees to continue receiving their generous federal subsidy even as they purchase coverage on the exchanges. No ordinary American would be allowed such an advantage.

However, a rebellion was cooking:

Vitter watched the maneuvering that led to the OPM decision. He began work on what became the Vitter Amendment, which he likes to call “No Washington Exemption from Obamacare,” that would reverse the OPM ruling. It specifies that members of Congress, staff, the president, vice president and all the administration’s political appointees buy health coverage through Obamacare exchanges. If any of them earn incomes low enough to qualify for regular Obamacare subsidies, they will receive them — just like any other American. But those with higher incomes will have to pay for their coverage on the exchanges — just like everybody else.

Vitter hasn’t exactly thrilled his colleagues. “There has been a lot of pushback behind the scenes, including from many Republicans,” he says. Political types have complained that the requirement will cause “brain drain” on the Hill as staffers escape the burden of paying for their own coverage. “My response is, first of all, it’s the law,” says Vitter. “Look, this is a disruption. It’s exactly what’s happening across America, to people who are going to the exchanges against their will. To me, that’s the point.”

Ron Johnson, the Republican senator from Wisconsin, is one colleague delighted by Vitter’s move. The idea of equal Obamacare treatment for Washington is enormously popular around the country, Johnson points out, which means even lawmakers who don’t like it will be afraid to oppose it.

“I think most members don’t want to vote to reject the OPM ruling,” Johnson says. “But I think most members would vote to do that, if they were forced to, because it is so politically unpopular to have special treatment for members of Congress and their staff.”

Seems it should be unnecessary to again make it clear that Congress should have to obey the law – to the letter – just like everyone else.  That was what the original law said, no?  Yet they managed a workaround that defeated the intent of the law, didn’t they?

So now another amendment is now necessary?

And here I thought that these folks were servants of the people and not a ruling elite (by the way, the big excuse is there’ll be a huge “brain drain” if the law is left in place.  Let me be the first to say, given the shape our country and government are in at the moment, I’d welcome the ‘brain drain’).

Make ‘em obey the law.  Make them navigate the same atrocity they foisted on the public.  No exemptions, no exceptions.  And that goes for every law they pass.

Period.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

69 Responses to Rule of man, not of law? See ObamaCare (and much else)

  • I guess they’re undergoing some manuevering where they will strip HC any subsidy from anyone who votes for this Vitter legislstation and their staff leaving representatives that vote for it having to buy HC out of pocket as well as their staff. 

  • Not since Andrew Jackson has any president I can think of put himself at defiance of the law like this regime has.

    And it is a multifaceted defiance of the laws, including being in contempt of several Federal courts currently or in the recent past, and the first AG to be held in contempt of Congress.

    The Obamabanana Republic, as I have said.

    • They should make violating the amendment a Class A felony.

    • Well, I think FDR was pretty far along as well, writing EOs to put Japanese in camps and ban gold.

      • Well, from a hard, objective standpoint, Lincoln was not exactly careful.
        Both FDR and Lincoln had the somewhat valid excuse of being involved in an existential war.
        Wilson could also be another, but I don’t know enough about the law of the period and whether he…like Obama…encouraged outright outlawry in his cabinet.

        • (A) FDR has no such cover with respect to the confiscation of gold.
          (B) It can be fairly argued that prior to the meeting of the legislature, the executive can with good faith execute the policies he believes the legislature will execute as an emergency measure, if there really is an emergency and the powers involved are traditionally executed by the executive in such an emergency.  It would be a constitutional crisis only if the legislature revoked the authority for the emergency action instead of endorsing it, and the executive then persisted.

          Martial law exists de facto where the military is operating as a necessary corollary to persecuting a war, and rebellion exists when it starts, not when the legislature agrees it has started.

          As an example, personally, I sincerely dislike the necessity of conversing with my local sheriff about what his approach will be to the organization of extra-legal militia units if the government at any level moves to confiscate 401K’s.  At that point, as an example, the rebellion will have begun, regardless of what the government or any supplicant media choose to call it.

          • AWRM.org

            Yes many there are feds.  It may well be hosted on government servers in fact.
            What does it matter?
            There is wheat in the chaff.  Keep your conduct legal until the balloon goes up, and find that wheat.

  • As I pointed out in another thread – I’m supposed to worry that public leeches….urrrr, I mean Congressional staffers, are going to brain drain?
    I guess we’re supposed to overlook the idea that doctors, nurses are going to retire or quit when this goes into full swing rather than deal with the aggravation and cost?
    We’re to just forget that medical professionals might pursue another line of work that doesn’t require a high liability coverage?
    We should ignore that Hospitals, clinics and business might close because of costs/profit reduction and onerous health care regulations?
    We shouldn’t worry about the effect on business and individuals nationwide?

    Seriously?  If they think they’re going to LEAVE their cushy jobs and find BETTER medical coverage in the private sector….more power to em, let em go!
    Let the little turds see if they can do better for their health coverage in the private sector, like the rest of us.
    It’s the LAW of the land, it’s not just a law that applies to them, WHERE are they going to go that it won’t cost them?
    They’ll still be required to have health coverage, and now they’ll have given up their damn power jobs in DC.

    Oh, cry me a river.

     

    • oker, I’m sorry you don’t see the true magnitude of the problem here. Of course, I’m not surprised, since you never seem to understand what I’m trying to tell you either.�

      All of you around here have a distorted view of what I think and believe. I decree it. And the fact that you’ve been reading what I’ve written for years or decades is beside the point, and I don’t know why you bring it up.�

      Also, understand that your complete misunderstanding of my positions, despite reading what I’ve said for years or decades, is certainly not due to any problems I have communicating them. I’m an expert in these matters, and shut up about having no research in them. That’s irrelevant. I have a doctorate from a place with “advanced” in its name, and that should be enough for you ignorant, uncredentialed commoners. �

      looker, these dedicated public servants are tasked with using their wise pragmatism to chart a course for an entire complex society with over 300 million people in it. And you would denigrate them, and let them go out and get grubby private sector jobs? You heartless and vicious fool. Their valuable capabilities to boss around the dense righties in flyover country would be lost, forever lost! �

      You guys really don’t get that elite people with advanced degrees, or who went to the best schools where they learned how to dress with sharp pants creases, really are different from you grunt engineer types. We think lofty thoughts, and are always concerned with what is good for society. Which, of course, always means more government and more spending.�

      Though I think government has too much power. Stop laughing. And no, I can’t come up with a single example, except that I’d cut military spending to the bone if I could. Other things I would just restructure. Which is not either a dodge that means I wouldn’t cut them. Well, maybe it is. Because they are necessary, and you are unfeeling disciples of Rand if you don’t agree. �

      I just want Americans to have the same fabulous healthcare those wise, wonderful Europeans have. So shut up about rationing and waiting lists. You are cherry picking data when you do that. I decree it. Their systems are wonderful, and you really need to shut up about how anyone with money over there gets an alternative to government health care, even to spending thousands of dollars to travel to another country. Those people are just selfish. Unless they are wise bureaucrats, of course, who need to stay healthy for the good of allllll the people.�

      Why don’t you clueless fools stop with the insults against me, anyway? It just means you have nothing to say, and I’ve won the argument. The insults don’t affect me at all.�

      And that’s not because I’m psychologically crippled so badly I couldn’t even keep a Russian bride happy. Stop saying that. It also doesn’t mean I have extensive psychological defense mechanisms to compensate for being a nobody, with no research accomplishments, delegated to teaching bored freshman with moose braying in the background.�

      I’m smart and capable. I do public lectures. Shut up about how no one shows up except other pitiful faculty members and students that I promise extra credit if they come. The guy sweeping up at the last one totally counts as an audience member.�

      Indeed some of my lectures are filled to overflowing. There are dozens of giant magenta caterpillars, with Sarah Palin’s face and ample bosom, staring intently at me, hanging on every word. Well, sometimes they flash me one of those naughty winks, but it just means they are particularly impressed with a point I just made. �

      Yes, I would love to educate all of you dense righties, if you would just acknowledge my godlike powers of political science. Which isn’t the least bit condescending. Because I really am much, much smarter and more expert than any of you, even those who live in the places I claim to be expert on.�

      But what I really want is for you to engage me as an equal. Which isn’t either a contradiction to me being a world-class expert. Isn’t that gracious of me? To offer to engage you as an equal even though I understand everything we discuss far better than any of you? Hey, shut up about the no research thing, would you? I have not come up with a dismissive answer for that yet. �

      Yes, to summarize, I know so, so much more than any of you, and I’m never wrong about what I say. Oh, sure I say I make mistakes, just to sound human, but you really know the truth, since I never acknowledge any, don’t you? The truth is that you should all be taking everything I say as gospel, while you are engaging me as an equal. Otherwise, I must apply my godlike powers to handwave away what you say, over and over, until you insult me so that I know I’ve won. �

      Hey, I don’t like that outcome any more than you do, so you should just give in and acknowledge my vast expertise. Which means admitting that you are wrong about everything and I’m right. �

      Hey, how hard would that be. Then I could just lecture on and on, educating you thick righties. Which I totally do out of the goodness of my heart, and definitely not because I have some pathological psychological craving to come here and irritate you. Or that I have to come here because other sites tend to ban me as soon as I start handwaving away their arguments and make every comment thread into the Ott Scerb show. Stop saying that.

      • There you go, trying to claim magenta isn’t named after a battle!   Oh, wait, I made that claim, which is true, but still.
        Well, I didn’t….I totally reject your arguments about whatever it was we were arguing about.   And you didn’t deny my main point, so, I won.
        And I was hoping the Magenta caterpillars would flash more than a wink, I was hoping for wardrobe malfunctions….errrr…..do they wear wardrobe?
        Is that Ward Robe? or War-Drobe?  War-Droid?  Are these the droids I’m looking for?   Is this thing on? (tap tap tap -’testing’ ‘mike check’  ‘testing’)


        And…where are the bosoms on a caterpillar?

        That’s kinda weird really.

  • Considering the people that are in Washington, would a “brain drain” be such a bad thing? From where I sit they are all a bunch of brainless idiots.

  • When I was working in the US Senate in the 1980s I was told that most laws did not apply to Congress.  Laws on employee protection did not apply to Senators and Congressmen, and in fact at almost every level people in Congress got perks and protections most people don’t.   So this is nothing new, nor can Obama be blamed.
    Also, some insight on staffer jobs.  I left because I wasn’t into the idea of working 60 to 70 hours a week playing Machiavellian political games in order to “win” and get ahead.  You either had to be a political ideologue fighting for a cause, or a power hungry “hard ball politician” to put up with the demands of that kind of job.  I realized that Republican or Democrat, politics was all about power games, and I couldn’t put my heart into that.  So I shocked my friends and colleagues by resigning, right after getting a promotion.  I had an “in” and most people didn’t give that up, but it wasn’t the life I wanted.

    • So this is nothing new, nor can Obama be blamed.

      Bullshit. Obama has decided not to follow the law. Obamacare specifically was written to apply to Congress, they had to do this to pass it. Obama is ignoring the law and going full banana republic.

    • When I was working in the US Senate in the 1980s I was told that most laws did not apply to Congress. Laws on employee protection did not apply to Senators and Congressmen, and in fact at almost every level people in Congress got perks and protections most people don’t. So this is nothing new, nor can Obama be blamed. Even if giving those perks explicitly violates laws passed by Congress in a way no other president has attempted, Obama can’t be blamed. Because he’s just dreamy. Oh, that christlike visage, how it makes everything he does so, so perfect. {sigh}



      Also, some insight on staffer jobs. I left because I wasn’t into the idea of working 60 to 70 hours a week playing Machiavellian political games in order to “win” and get ahead. And definitely not because I sucked at playing those political games because I lack any ability whatsoever to read other people and outmaneuver them. Or how everyone around me got tired of my pompous, long-winded exposition on every subject. Nope. I’m so good and pure that those Machiavellian games were beneath me. Stop laughing.


      So shut up about how many hours I spend here playing games in discussions about politics. Because I don’t. I just bring my wise, deep experience and rich, creamy analysis here to help you dense righties understand things. Out of the goodness of my heart. That’s right, I irritate you for your own good and don’t you forget it.


      I realized that Republican or Democrat, politics was all about power games, and I couldn’t put my heart into that. Those grapes were definitely sour. No, I’m so good and virtuous that I just can’t get into power stuff. Well, except the godlike power of political science, which I use to handwave away any arguments I don’t like and educate thick righties about how the world really works instead of their ideological fixation on silly, outdated concepts like “freedom” and “honor” and “rights” and such. LOL!


      Which are silly and you’re a deranged ideologue if you believe in them. We’re just carbon based forms of life and don’t have any rights, except of course for the right to healthcare and any other rights that I need to put into an argument to prove why we need more government, and wise pragmatic moderate leftists need more power to tell you grunt engineer types how to live your lives. Which isn’t inconsistent in the least, and if you had a degree from a place with “advanced” in its name, you would understand.


      So I shocked my friends and colleagues by resigning, right after getting a promotion to “Chief Coffee Fetcher.” I had an “in” because I knew all the best coffee and sandwich places, and most people didn’t give that up, but it wasn’t the life I wanted. Nope, I just didn’t want to suck those sour grapes another minute.


      Instead, I wanted a life where I could live in a small, idyllic town, teaching political science to innocent young minds. But not a stressful position, with graduate students, and research, and all that. No, I just wanted to teach. It’s a magical life, not having all that stress of having to produce any research or deal with challenging graduate students, and using the same lecture notes over and over and over again, no matter which class I happen to be teaching at the moment. And shut up about how it’s so simple and unsatisfying that it creates a pathological craving in me to find people to talk down, and that makes me come here and irritate you people. I don’t either have such a craving. Why, I can quit coming here any time I want. I’ve done it a bunch of times.


      Why don’t you people engage me as an equal? Your insults are impotent, you know. Me and the magenta caterpillars just laugh and laugh at them. I have bested you intellectually over and over, and that frustrates you, so you insult me.


      Yes, the only possible reason you would insult me is that I have proven you all wrong and you don’t know how to respond any other way. I decree it. It can’t possibly be because I make no sense in my arguments. You just don’t understand them, and shut up about how I must suck at explaining them if you don’t understand them after ten years. I am an excellent writer. I have a book on German foreign policy stuff, which is definitely not from a vanity press that suckers social science academics into writing books no one in their right mind would pay money for. It’s rich, creamy analysis. That, plus my doctorate, is all the proof I need that I am right about everything I claim, and you guys are a bunch of ODS-inflicted doody heads.

    • This is the formal fallacy of ad hominem tu quoque.
      It has the form: Doing this is bad.  Oh, yeah…wul, you did it, too…!
      It is also essentially bullshit, as it compares an explicit PRESIDENTIALLY DICTATED exemption granting a SUBSIDY to an exemption in the law (which was wrong), or in some informal rules.
      According to Erp, his morality compelled him to leave a staff job in DC for the ethically brighter uplands of pizza pilferage and swindling undergraduates.
      Helluva move, there, Erp.

    • Yeah, you gave it all up not because you’re a midwit, but because you’re so very holy.  *chuckles* *rolls eyes*

      • Nothing “holy.”   I just wasn’t cut out for that kind of political infighting.  I have been successful because I’ve been very focused on doing what I want – what makes me happy – not what society expects.  It’s not morality, it’s actually just not being afraid to be myself.  I give that advice to students all the time – follow what brings you joy, what you love, and what reflects who you are.  No job should ever be something someone hates and does just to make money.  What kind of life would that be?

        • I just wasn’t cut out for that kind of political infighting. Because I’m such a good person, and definitely not because I’m a pathetic wimpy gamma male with no ability to stand up for myself in person.


          So don’t even start about how I live in a tiny town to avoid any possible conflicts in person. Or that I restrict my argumentative side to the Internet where no one can possible do anything except insult me, which of course means I win the argument.


          I have been successful because I’ve been very focused on doing what I want – what makes me happy – not what society expects. And part of what makes me happy is coming here and irritating the shit out of you dense righties. I get a real charge out of that. Even though society doesn’t expect someone to get their jollies from pathological pestering of other people, I still do it, because I am not focused on doing what society expects, as I said before.


          It’s not morality, it’s actually just not being afraid to be myself. No bourgeoisie morality for me, no sir, because I have risen above all that with my post-modern quantum spirituality in which I control the future by sending out the right thought waves. And being myself is so, so much fun. It would be for you too if you had my godlike abilities of political science, especially the omnipotent ability to judge all arguments you throw against me as invalid and irritate other people in ways they’ve never seen before.


          I give that advice to students all the time – follow what brings you joy, what you love, and what reflects who you are. And if that results in irritating the shit out of other people on the Internet, well, they probably deserve it. Coming here and making every thread the Ott Scerb show, and driving people crazy with preposterous arguments and contradictions absolutely reflects who I am.


          Which isn’t either a deluded narcissist, so don’t even start with that. I am smart and expert in everything we ever discuss around here, but that doesn’t make me a narcissist. Neither does handwaving aside all other arguments because I just don’t care to accept them. Or asking you to engage me as an equal while simultaneously insisting that you bow before my special expertise.


          No job should ever be something someone hates and does just to make money. Yes, we should find garbage collectors who love the smelly, icky stuff that the rest of us throw away, and just live to take it away to putrid landfills. And pest controllers who think giant magenta caterpillars with Sarah Palin’s face and ample bosom are positively cuddly.


          Well, actually, when they are wearing their light blue chiffon bustiers, they are rather cuddly. I certainly found that to be the case when I was enduring a soulless husk of a marriage because I’m so boring and pathetic that I couldn’t keep a Russian bride happy.

        • I just wasn’t cut out for that kind of political infighting.  I have been successful because I’ve been very focused on doing what I want – what makes me happy – not what society expects.  It’s not morality, it’s actually just not being afraid to be myself.

          You made a moral choice when you decided that your work on Capitol Hill conflicted with your values.  That is the essence of morality, and religion is not a necessary part of it.  Just choices.
          I won’t guess at your motives, but I think that leaving a position attached to the political arena is a good thing, all other things being equal.

    • Obama promised Change, doing things differently, and transparency.
      LOL.

    • When I was working in the US Senate in the 1980s I was told that most laws did not apply to Congress.

      Cite? And your usual anecdote doesn’t count and never did, but your every present gullibility is showing.

    • As usual this isn’t the story you have previously told… ”The trouble was, my Senator was following Reagan, and went from being known as a
      liberal Republican to a conservative Republican. I found myself even voting
      against my “boss” in the 1984 elections, despite having worked on his campaign.
      Still, I was learning a lot, and even got a trip to Greece and Turkey as I
      worked on foreign affairs. Yet, I realized that I had to be true to my self and
      couldn’t work for someone I didn’t believe in. I decided to quit that rather
      prestigious job.”

      • Not that your CV is relevant to the topic at hand but interesting how, as with the pizza pilfering saga, the details of history as needed by the narrative.

        • Being a post-modernist means never having to say you’re sorry… for changing the past to support today’s narrative.

          • What does it say about you, psychologically, that you want to use an incident when I was 18 and made pizza free for the workers as a way to insult me decades later, even though I wrote about that in a blog post and said it was the wrong response.  If I said I’d taken paper clips from work, would you be saying I’m a thief?  I mean, seriously, how does it make YOU look when you want to take that and use it as a way to attack.  Do you think it makes you look good?  Here’s the post:  http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2011/08/29/my-marxist-pizza-moment/

          • The point, Pizza Hood, is not that you committed theft by “making free” pizza to your subordinates. You cannot make free someone else’s property to a third party, unless you pay for it yourself, which you didn’t. The point is, as Elliot demonstrated in some other comment a while back, that your story on these “moral compass” issues changes with each iteration and according to the audience. In other words, as Billy notes, your post-modernism (or possibly just narcissism that requires you to look good to the audience) excuses you from ever saying sorry since you don’t actually think you are lying when you do this.

          • Well, Scottie, what does it say about you that you assumed I was primarily referencing the pizza incident? A bit sensitive about that one, are you?

            I wasn’t. Actually, I was primarily thinking of your “evolving” story about why you left your DC position. I was responding to this comment shown below, with some bolding to help you understand the part I noticed.
             

            Not that your CV is relevant to the topic at hand but interesting how, as with the pizza pilfering saga, the details of history as needed by the narrative.

            (Prediction: the above will result in another “more in sorrow than in anger post” about I have you all wrong, despite having read your crap for at least seven years. You’ll use anything at hand to turn the thread into the Scott Erb show, eh? Too bad you can’t admit to yourself that you have that narcissistic craving that’s so obvious to the rest of us. So, please, come on back and prove me right. Come on, you know you want to.)

          • Dude
            so you don’t understand it’s more the lie than it is the incident?

            See, you HAVE no character, or you’d understand that.  And that ties back into your bullshit philosophies concerning inalienable rights.  You think it’s okay to stagger around with the idea there really isn’t a right or a wrong  because you can define them whenever the need arises instead of knowing what they are ALL the time, EVERY time, ahead of time.

            People make mistakes, we don’t always live up to what we believe we believe, sometimes we rationalize excuses for it.  But you, you rationalize, AND you change the story to fit your rationale, as noted, for the audience.

            you have all the internal fortitude of a hollow chocolate Easter bunny.

          • Looker, I have the character to put my name on my posts, stand by what I say, and try (except in moments of weakness) NOT to personally insult others.  The part of my character I’m most proud of is that I cannot carry a grudge, or harbor ill will towards others.
            I’m not sure what you mean, Billy.  My blog post says everything about when out of anger at age 18 when I saw company money being stolen to buy a prostitute for the “big boss” I decided it was OK to make a pizza for the workers.   If you guys want to turn that into a character attack on me, that’s just weird.  It’s also ineffective.  Why I left my job in DC is not an evolving story, it’s simply fact.  I could go into more detail – I got back from a trip to Istanbul, Athens and Rome, and things I observed on that trip soured me on my boss at the time, and fed into my growing distaste about politics.  I decided that if I teach, I can try to help people understand the world and not dirty my hands by playing power games.   What do you think is “evolving”?   And why do you need to always be playing games here, trying to insult/attack rather than just converse?  Again, do you really think that makes you look good – and would you do that sort of thing if you didn’t have a very friendly audience?

          • Right, right, right.

            and meaningless – I gave you my name.
            Did it change anything?
            You’re a fraud Scott, and you think ‘putting your name’ on things means you have character.

            No.

          • “except in moments of weakness”
            I missed that.   Ah, let me count the ways.

            But why bother.
            Obamacare is a lie, the President is a liar (a serial liar in fact), he’s incompetent as well.

            Not a thing you can say changes any of that.

            Now, run along.

             

          • The pizza saga is not about a youthful indiscretion of an 18 year old.  Lots of cites here.
            But somehow noticing that different versions have contradicting details is a sign of psychological problems?

          • Poor old Scotty. Still trying to miss the point in the vain hope someone will bite. What it really comes down to is that he never thought that the internet would have such a long and perfect memory. Who knew back in the Usenet days that Google would provide such and easy search of sooooo much spouting from soooo many people? Certainly not Pizza Hood. It makes it very hard to keep up a flowing narrative when people can quote your exact words.
             

          • What’s funny about your fixation with what I did at 18 is it shows how desperately you want to lash out.  You can’t hurt me and you know it.  Yet my views challenge yours and you’ve found that standing mano a mano you cannot win an argument.  So all you have is ad hominems and name calling.  You’re ideology has failed, Elliot. So blather on about what I did at 18 or some other such claim that I have “no principles.”  *eyes rolling*   Point is, you lose when we actually debate.  And as far as the tea party: http://scotterb.wordpress.com/2013/09/29/fear-and-the-tea-party/
            No more from on this thread, I keep hoping there will be a good conversation, but a few of you just can’t resist massive posts that go to the gutter.

          • Try…try to resist Erp’s blog whoring, and go read this, which has something to do with the topic, is factually correct, and written by someone who can think critically.

            So last week, while most of the country was talking about football or fears of a government shutdown, Rasmussen released a poll that should worry everyone — but especially incumbent Democrats in Congress. According to Rasmussen’s survey, most Americans think the IRS broke the law by targeting Tea Party groups for harassment, but few expect it to be punished. Fifty-three percent think the IRS broke the law by targeting the Tea Party and other conservative groups like the voter-integrity outfit True The Vote; only 24% disagreed. But only 17% think it is even somewhat likely that anyone will be charged, while 74% think that criminal charges are unlikely.
            So a majority of Americans think that government officials who exercise an important trust broke the law, but only a very small number think anything will be done to punish them.

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/09/29/irs-tea-party-column/2892135/

          • Oh my God, anyone else fall off their asses laughing at the vision of Scotty going mano a mano with someone? Well at least he is back on form of claiming victory while the Abrams roll round in the back shot.

            Hey Scotty, perhaps you should try going mano a mano with “Reading Comprehension for Dummies, a primer for interweb commenters who don’t want to appear like gigantic muppets”.

          • I’m not sure what you mean, Billy.  My blog post says everything about when out of anger at age 18 when I saw company money being stolen to buy a prostitute for the “big boss” I decided it was OK to make a pizza for the workers.

            Still not reading responses, I see. As I said, my comment was not about your famous pizza incident, and yet in what you addressed directly to me, you just keep yammering about it, trotting out the usual rationalizations.

            You see, that’s one key difference here that you don’t seem to be able to grasp – people here actually read the things they are responding to. You’ve proven several times that you often don’t.

            Which tells us that your idea of coming here for a conversation is nonsense. You don’t even read what others are saying. You find keywords that tell you the general subject, and just start spewing.

            It’s all about getting your own kicks, posting what you want to post, trying to get under other people’s skin. You know you’re not going to convince anybody. And you know you are going to get insulted.

            Now, any behavioral psychologist will tell you that people don’t do things (without coercion) unless they have some kind of need, or gain some kind of satisfaction from them. You come here knowing you will be insulted, and mostly ignoring what others say. Therefore it’s a reasonable conclusion that the outcome you get is the outcome you want – not a conversation, just shouting back and forth until you manage to irritate other people.

            It is pretty clear, as others have stated so well, that this whole pizza incident really does get under your skin (despite your feeble claims to the contrary), and that’s why it keeps coming up. As I’ve outlined above, it’s clear to us (even if you don’t admit it to yourself) that you come here to irritate us. So that’s one of the handier things that people here can use to irritate you in retaliation. Despite your squirming attempts to redefine reality in your own mind, there’s just too much on record about it.

            If you were rational about this, and you really wanted a conversation, and you never got one; you only saw every thread descend into insults because of other unreasonable commenters – then you would stop coming here. But you don’t. I know you can’t admit this obvious truth, but you come here because of the vitriolic responses you get, not in spite of them.

          • More like Mano a Bozo.



             

          • What’s funny about your fixation with what I did at 18….

            I don’t fault you for your behavior at 18, not now that you admit you were wrong.
            You were corrected on that particular lie c. 2001, but you insist on repeating it.
            The issue isn’t the actions of an 18-year old.  The issue is a ~40 year-old who “teaches this stuff” writing, “Was I stealing? Sure, according to the law. But I felt morally justified and still do. He was stealing from us, having us work hard to make him rich, paying minimum wage to most of us.“  The issue is a ~50 year-year old who “teaches this stuff” telling conflicting versions, claiming that it was the owner, then the CEO, then the district manager who ruffled your feathers.  First you claimed that “the employees ate free from then on when I was in charge…..“  Later, you claimed it was a one time thing, only that night.

          • I don’t identify with the “tea party”.  That designation became increasingly meaningless within a few months after Santelli’s on-air statement on the Chicago exchange floor.  I instantly dropped any small feeling of solidarity within that time frame as soon as I saw footage on the news of a local rally.  People were carrying signs about illegal immigration and other “conservative” hot-button issues which had nothing to do with Santelli’s target: rewarding bad behavior.  Then the Republican phonies like Palin rode in to put on a “tea party” mask and the focus was corrupted irredeemably.
            Now, anyone can claim to be “tea party” to try to gain support, regardless of whether their positions bear any resemblance to the Sons of Liberty type of rebellion against abuse of authority, and any ashhole (like you) can label a Republican he doesn’t like as a “tea party” type as a means to marginalize and dismiss the target.
            I could care less what you write about them.  You already showed your utter failure to understand things when you labeled the “Arab Spring” the “anti-tea party”.
            Your whole goal is to smear the enemies of the Democrat party. and you’re not very good at it.

          • Erb just oscillates between “Obama is awesome!” and “I hate the Tea Party!”  The douche is a predictable Cathedralite with no original thought whatsoever.

          • “Oh my God, anyone else fall off their asses laughing at the vision of Scotty going mano a mano with someone?”

            Oh, he’s a real Street Fighter.  That’s why he lives in a state that is 98% white and calls it paradise.  Take him down to the “diverse” part of the city and see how long he lasts…

          • “Take him down to the “diverse” part of the city and see how long he lasts…”

            Hey, he went on holiday to Turkey once and they can be kind of swarthy done there. But yes, good point, he does move in very diverse circles.

    • Yeah, but how much pizza did you steal on the way out?

    • Now notice how Erp has managed to deflect from the original thesis…
      That Obama is turning this democratic republic into a banana republic, where the rule of law is trumped by the rule of man.
      My original comment above states a proposition Erp could have addressed: that not since at least Jackson have we seen any president act in such open defiance of the law.   That includes the courts.
      And we know he does it constantly, openly, and as a matter of his policy.
      Erp’s response was the Congress had, in the past, exempted themselves from the laws, which is not remotely the same as DEFYING the laws (bad as it is for any law-maker to do).
      He will not deal with the thesis of McQ’s post, because he cannot.  So, in true troll fashion, he deflects.

      • To be fair to his Erbiness… he isn’t trolling… he is actively running defense for Obama by attempting his usual weak deflection of “everyone does something not quite the same so hey, Obama still rocks my socks”. He slipped in the stuff about his own experience to try and deflect from his deflection of course, but managed to screw the pooch on that one.

        • So his comment is supposed to detract from McQ’s post?

          Bwaaahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

          • Heh heh, yeah see just below… apparently now you should embrace the 21st century change of politics and just accept the political class exempting themselves, because, you know, Obama… or possibly because, Bush. But anyway, oooga boooga! Tea Party!
             

      • Hmmm, that’s the same thing many on the left said about Bush and his policies.  Each side thinks the other side is turning the country into a banana Republic (with Bush it was signing ceremony statements).  The world is different than it used to be, politics and the country are changing.  The tea party represents fear of that change (the subject of my most recent blog).  But only 22% support the tea party.

        • Odd that a supposed liberal, left libertarian or whatever the flavor of the week is, is OK with government passing laws and exempting themselves from the inconvenient ones. Does every political defense in the USA these days basically devolve to a venal “well Bush did something kind of similar, so stfu”?

        • So nearly a quarter of the total population.  Considering that leaves the remaining three quarters to be divided up amongst all the other beliefs I’d say that’,s hardly a number to be waved away.

          But critical thinking is another of your hollow core abilities. It’s like talking to Calvin from Calvin and Hobbes without any of the enjoyable parts.

        • The numbers you cite ALSO say that most people do NOT OPPOSE the TEA Party, which is important.
          Something on the order of 70% support or don’t feel one way or another about the TEA Party.
          And the American Revolution was carried by roughly the same fraction of the population, if memory serves.
          As was the Civil Rights movement.
          And, Erp, you are a liar, and we all know it.  OBJECTIVELY (which does not exist for a post-modernist quantum “scientist” like yourself) Obama and his Obami are an outlaw gang the likes of which we have never seen in this nation’s history.  Not at that level of power.  And never with the open collusion of the press.

          The world is different than it used to be, politics and the country are changing.

          That should be the stupid tautological “wisdom” of the week, and its only Monday!
          Whadda lying Collectivist tool!

  • “So this is nothing new, nor can Obama be blamed.”
    Back in 2009, when Democrats were writing the massive new national health care scheme, Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley offered an amendment. Obamacare created exchanges through which millions of Americans would purchase “affordable” health coverage. Grassley’s amendment simply required lawmakers, staff, and some in the executive branch to get their insurance through the exchanges, too.
    To every Republican’s amazement, Democrats accepted the amendment.”

    Yes, he can be, directly, because the usual exemptions were intended to be there, and this legislation SPECIFICALLY enumerated that Congress would NOW be subject to the law just as everyone else was.
    Really, can you read?  Do you bother?

    And the King, looking down upon his faithful minions waved his hand and came up with a “solution” by executive fiat that uses tax dollars to circumvent the law:

    Not long after — presto! — the Office of Personnel Management unveiled a proposed rule to allow members of Congress, their staff, and some executive branch employees to continue receiving their generous federal subsidy even as they purchase coverage on the exchanges. No ordinary American would be allowed such an advantage.



    Pretend I typed this slowly and read it…
    Obama gave them an exemption through executive fiat.


    Why do you make such an ass of yourself?
    So you could throw around your history in Congress, like that means anything?

    • For being such an expert ninja master on these topics, Scott really is terribly informed about the subject matter. I am often lead to doubt my own beliefs in his self-proclaimed expertishness. It’s almost as if he works in the backwoods because that is the place he can do least harm with his ignorance. Whether it be European politics, the habits of Scandinavians, or just something as simple as quantum field theory, he just never seems to get it right. Well, at least he has been on holiday to Turkey at the expense of the taxpayer, that must have been kewl… along with free pizza and paperclips. Silly me. He also seems to be unable to use Google to check out what might trip him up… about what he wrote last week, year or decade.

      On the other hand, I do learn quite a useful bit here about American politics. But not from Erb.

  • Does anyone remember those ten article of the Contract With America, 1995?
    Wasn’t one of  them something along the lines of “Congress will abide by all rules we have to”?
     

    • That’s one of the reasons Newt had to go, the establishment GOP couldn’t stand him.  He meant what he said when he said it.
      Not that he didn’t change his mind…

      • Newt is a few notches up from McCain.  McCain claims to be a “maverick”, but that just means he sides with Democrats when it serves the “establishment”, not when it serves individual rights.  Newt occasionally takes the more ethical side of an issue against the “establishment”, but he’s taken a number of position on issues hostile to individual rights and in favor of more authoritarian government.  Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant what he said when he spoke for smaller government, free market, individual rights, etc., we must hold him accountable for what he said on those other matters.

  • “If you’re one of the vast majority of Americans who already have health care, you already have new benefits you didn’t before, like free mammograms and contraceptive care with no copay, and discounts on prescription medicine for seniors.” Pres. Red Line

    See, that is a lie. There is no such thing as a free good. Somebody is paying for everything anyone gets.  (Erp, I will be happy to teach you basic economics if you sign up for my on-line course.  Hell, I would do it for free!)

    “You’ve already got new protections in place too, like no more lifetime limits on your care, no more discriminating against children with preexisting conditions like asthma, or being able to stay on your parents’ plan until you turn 26.”

    Yes. So now “insurance” is not insurance at all. It is more a fascist utility, collecting money and information (ALLLLLLL your private health information), and doling out what you’re permitted by the government, and with the hope you can find someone who will take the chit and provide you medical care within driving distance.
    Oh, and you are infantilized up thru your mid-twenties by Big Brother.
    Suckers.

  • Obamacare was designed to fail, but it was designed to fail eventually, not quickly. Progressives, with the help of the media, would blame a failure a few years from now on the “free market.” But failure from the start will force the blame fall where is squarely belongs – on government control.” –Derek Hunter

    And, if we were simply to allow the free market to work in health care generally, as it does in several nice niches now…which provide models proving the thesis…it could all be resolved in a matter of a few years, at no cost from government intrusion in either money or rights.

    But that is NOT what the Collective wants.  It is about CONTROL.

    • But failure from the start will force the blame fall where is squarely belongs – on government control.

      I don’t know that it’s as cut and dried as this suggests, but it’s human nature to see connections more clearly when they are proximate in time or space.

      People also have fairly recent exposure to the grandiose promises made to get Obamacare through Congress. The most obvious falsehood was “if you like your (doctor or plan), you can keep it.” Any person who is forced to change plans, or has to change a single doctor, understands viscerally that Obama was lying about that. There will be many millions of such cases, and when the word spreads through family and social connections, that single falsehood has the potential to become the soundbite meme for what’s wrong with Obamacare.

      (Usual disclaimer that post-modernists like Obama don’t think they are lying – they don’t believe in objective truth and are just trying to shape their preferred narrative. That’s also why they can change any story after the fact to better support their position, with no shame or guilt.)

      • There will be many millions of such cases, and when the word spreads through family and social connections, that single falsehood has the potential to become the soundbite meme for what’s wrong with Obamacare.

        >>>>Filtered through the media/low-info cultures unceasing message that it’s the GOP/Market/Big Insurance fault.  Good luck with that.

  • I go Vitter one better. I’d also mandate that the Pres. and his family have to get the same level of healthcare that they demand for us. That means no more access to Walter Reed and the skilled specialists over there for Barack.

     

  • I will not comply because I am a free citizen of the United States, not a subject of its government. I consider non-compliance with this monstrosity and the tens of thousands of pages of regulations that are to be enforced by an unelected bureaucracy, and that have left a gigantic carbon footprint on our environment and the United States Constitution, a duty.
    Non-compliance is my executive order, and that order reads in part that I do not recognize any government’s claim on my action or inaction in the marketplace, nor upon any personal information I am unwilling to divulge.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/i_will_not_comply.html
    Yep. There will be a lot of us.  And our numbers will grow.

     

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet