Rob's House

I do agree that people look at PC as a negative in the abstract, I just hope that continues til we reach a level of sanity. What's ironic about Meathead's deal is that I think he was satirically poking fun at Rush Limbaugh. I didn't really appreciate it b/c I personally like Rush & remember that his commentary about media treatment of black QBs was falsely interpreted to mean blacks suck at QB, but regardless, Meathead's comments could hardly be considered overtly racist, yet we see the reaction. I understand it's important to err on the side of non-racism; I just don't see any value in taking it to this extreme.

I like this answer and I hope it's true, I just don't see the pendulum swinging back anytime soon. I was first aware of how extremely sensitive we'd become as a nation in the early 90s and over the last 20 years it's just gotten crazier. The McNabb thread on the main board is a perfect example.

What value do we as a society reap from this hyper-sensitive attitude so many (particularly on the west coast & NE) seem to display any time racial distinctions are mentioned? Obviously we don't want to Categorize & divide people along racial & ethnic lines, nor do we want to overly generalize people & place negative stereotypes on individuals based on superficial criteria, but what value is there in being so uptight about having an honest discussion about general differences in the various sub-cultures in America, many of which are significantly defined by ethnicity. Or what about innocuous jokes or satirical humor targeting societal attitudes about race? Are we somehow better served by living in an antiseptic society where open & honest dialogue, not intended to hurt anyone, should be stiffly suppressed to protect the perceived feelings of some?

What's wrong with you guys? I took it as satirical humor. I'm noticing people are really racially sensitive around here. Must be a northern thing.

Let's revisit this list in 3 years

I do think the tax power argument is the best one and minimizes the constitutional usurpation that would have arisen had it been upheld under the commerce clause. In short, it's an excise tax. It's just the first time an excise tax has been placed on existence.

I can't speak for everyone, but as for me I expected better of him. You already know the others are socialists who seek to reframe the constitution as a foundation for a socialist society, and they're fairly open about it. Roberts plays himself off as a guy who is interested in the rule of law and is smart enough to know better. With this decision & the foolishness he used to justify his decision it's hard to reconcile this with who he pretends to be. As far as SC decisions go his is hardly the greatest stretch of logic to find its way into the law, but when we needed him to protect the constitution & ultimately the structure of our society, he chose to go the other way for whatever reason & it's very disappointing.

Notice how the ACA advocates have been relatively quiet up until yesterday, but now interpret a SC ruling (by a 1 vote margin) that the constitution doesn't absolutely forbid this activity (although it is forbidden under the authority congress & the king cited in enacting it) as a ringing endorsement of the wisdom and virtue of this hodge-podge "do something" abortion of a law. You know, I'm friends with a lot of libs, "progressives", and outright Marxists. They get off on the idea of a perfect society & that's cool; they can think whatever they want & it doesn't change the flavor of my beer. What makes you such a contemptible piece of **** is your insistence in declaring that everyone who doesn't believe in your starry eyed, naive, idealistic bull **** is driven by selfish and immoral motives. Did it ever cross your simple mind that others might think your ideas, if implemented, might cause more harm than good to the society as a whole? Or do you need to demonize them to justify something within yourself?

What's your point?

Roberts did some mental gymnastics to come up with that. He cites some Decisions of questionable constitutionality, comes up with an absurd analogy about taxing home-owners for not having certain windows (which is both dissimilar in principle to the decision he's trying to draw a parallel to, & a questionable conclusion), then as the lynchpin of his argument merely opines that the constitution allows a federal tax on inactivity, but rather than supporting his statement he simply says that it is clear so as to avoid having to provide a reason on which to base the belief that the constitution allows the government to tax you for being alive. When they list 3 reasons it's usually because they don't have 1 that's worth a damn. Perhaps John Roberts wanted to secure his legacy with the media, or maybe he has some other agenda that I don't know about. But no one with a triple digit IQ and at least a passing familiarity with the constitution could accept the pile of **** he just put on paper unless they really really wanted to.

you're kind of touching on all the things wrong with this. Truth is it's not a tax, it's a penalty that's only being called a tax b/c calling it what it is makes it unconstitutional.. It's also a bit disturbing that a government can take such liberties with you, your time, & your money. How long until you are coerced to get your government physical every year to determine what you owe? Maybe the government Dr. & IRS can send your info to a new or expanded bureaucratic agency that takes your health & income into effect to determine the cost of your "health insurance". Further, why should I maintain insurance when can pay $700/yr & sign up for insurance if I need it? If I get in a car accident or something of the sort they still have to treat me. Otherwise what's my $700 for? Oh yeah, it's a "tax". And I wouldn't call for John Roberts' impeachment, but it wouldn't break my heart if he fell off the planet either.

"Obamatax" lacks class? The guy said he wouldn't raise taxes on anyone making < $250k, and now his "victory" is that the SC upheld his signature legislation as a tax. Any politician or campaign manager who didn't play that for all it's worth would be derelict.

Wickard was the third and most egregious of a string of cases where the court expanded the scope of the commerce clause to the point that it included virtually everything imaginable. In short, the court said that a man growing wheat for personal consumption fell under the Feds' power to regulate interstate commerce b/c in the aggregate people growing their own wheat could indirectly impact wheat that might well have been sold across state lines. That was the day the constitution was really laid to rest. Since then we've just been masquerading around with it like Weedend at Bernie's.

That's a legitimate concern, but anyone recognizing it is likely to get birther treatment.

There's certainly comfort in that. I just found out it was allowed as a tax which makes the ruling less repugnant to the constitution than a commerce clause ruling would be. I'm going to read the case before opining any further. Edit: There's no way possible for Obama to claim he didn't raise taxed on people earning < $250k.

So calling a duck a duck is an underhanded tactic if the duck's dad insists it's a swan?

You're right. This is just the nail in the coffin. It's outside both the letter and spirit of the constitution. Probably the worst decision handed down since Wickard.

RIP constitution

I'll check it out if I have time. I don't find the gun running aspect of the story terribly interesting, nor am I terribly concerned with the origins of the gun. What I'm curious about is why Obama decided to invoke executive privilege, why Holder got a take-back on his perjured testimony, and what they're trying to hide.

There is a subtle difference between supporting an individual's rights to bear arms and the government running guns to Mexican drug lords for political reasons. Not that this is even what the real controversy is about, but hey, they went after Clinton for adultery, right?

All I got out of that was A. It's only outrageous and racist if the victim, rather than the perpetrator, is black, and B. the writer doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

That's my story Somehow I think your get up is catching more glances at the rainbow parade. Just sayin.

Uhhh....okay. Not sure what any of this has to do with what I said, but whatever. The basic point was not to equalize public & private but rather point out to what extent the opposite is true. Nor was the point that government power should be as constrained (or limited if you prefer) as that of private entities but rather to point out the significance of the distinction. Because government is not constrained by the limitations of private entities, those in government have far greater power to forcibly impose their will on supposedly free individuals. This power is dangerous. I find it silly to fret about the threat of private companies, who you can simply choose not to do business with, while scoffing at concerns over the ever-increasing scope of relatively unchecked government power. Especially silly when you understand that the only way a corporation can assume such powers (I.e. monopoly) is with the assistance of government, while government requires no such enabling by anything corporate to impose its will on you. Therefore, government is necessarily more dangerous than corporations & its power & scope should be carefully limited and constantly monitored with a skeptical eye rather than the trusting eye of a sucker - well it should be if you want to live in a free & prosperous society.

That's why real men ride a Honda

The difference is, the private sector requires the help of the government in order to impose its will upon the public. The governmnet has no such constraint.