As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Forming a More Perfect Union

18081838586101

Posts

  • LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    Ubik wrote: »
    Langly wrote: »
    Why does the orly owl have a wig?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orly_taitz

    Hahaha

    How is her first name actually orly that is amazing

  • LockoutLockout I am still searching Registered User regular
    Fandyien wrote: »
    where do i go to sign a petition to let me watch british people sleep

    in meantime, you can just listen to the things they say in their sleep

    http://sleeptalkinman.blogspot.com/

    f24GSaF.jpg
  • JoeUserJoeUser Forum Santa Registered User regular
    Obama warns 'unelected' supreme court not to strike down healthcare law
    Barack Obama has said it would be wrong for the "unelected" supreme court to take the "unprecedented and extraordinary" decision to strike down his signature health care legislation when it was passed by an elected Congress.

    The comments suggest the president may make an election issue of those described by Democrats as partisan judges if they throw out the Affordable Care Act following last week's dramatic hearings at which the aggressive tide of questioning from some of the justices suggested that the conservative majority is hostile to the legislation. Their decision is expected in June.

  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

  • UbikUbik oh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by then Registered User regular
    JoeUser wrote: »
    Obama warns 'unelected' supreme court not to strike down healthcare law
    Barack Obama has said it would be wrong for the "unelected" supreme court to take the "unprecedented and extraordinary" decision to strike down his signature health care legislation when it was passed by an elected Congress.

    The comments suggest the president may make an election issue of those described by Democrats as partisan judges if they throw out the Affordable Care Act following last week's dramatic hearings at which the aggressive tide of questioning from some of the justices suggested that the conservative majority is hostile to the legislation. Their decision is expected in June.
    "I am confident that the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

    i don't know what to tell you dude if you think that's never happened before

    l8e1peic77w3.jpg

  • LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    Uh the unelected courts strike down legislation all the time, how can you reasonably take that position.

    Seriously that is the activist judges argument anti-gay groups use

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

    would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?

  • LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    That's the entire god damn idea behind an impartial judicial system

  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    well, unprecedented and extraordinary in that they'd be winding back a huge pile of New Deal jurisprudence

    it's just ugh another president has come down with a case of any-judge-I-disagree-with-is-an-activist-judge-itis

  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Langly wrote: »
    Uh the unelected courts strike down legislation all the time, how can you reasonably take that position.

    Seriously that is the activist judges argument anti-gay groups use

    There are rumors that he may have gotten a leak that the Court struck it down and that would explain him speaking the way he is.

    But I still don't think they did.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • JoeUserJoeUser Forum Santa Registered User regular
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    well, unprecedented and extraordinary in that they'd be winding back a huge pile of New Deal jurisprudence

    it's just ugh another president has come down with a case of any-judge-I-disagree-with-is-an-activist-judge-itis
    But opinion polls show that if the supreme court rules against the health care law then the president may be able to make political capital from attacking the justices as partisan as he attempts to win re-election and see the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives again in order to pass new health reforms that will stand the constitutional test.

  • UbikUbik oh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by then Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    well, unprecedented and extraordinary in that they'd be winding back a huge pile of New Deal jurisprudence

    it's just ugh another president has come down with a case of any-judge-I-disagree-with-is-an-activist-judge-itis

    this
    "I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law," Obama said. "Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognise that and not take that step."

    makes it seem like he's more saying "put your money where your mouth is, conservatives" but still it's a crappy view to have of the Court as an institution

    (whether the Court is making itself look bad all the time on its own is another story)

    Ubik on
    l8e1peic77w3.jpg

  • mensch-o-maticmensch-o-matic Registered User regular
    im not even sure what he meant to do by pointing out that they were unelected

    constitutionality isnt decided by popular vote! thats kind of the whole point!

  • UbikUbik oh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by then Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Langly wrote: »
    Uh the unelected courts strike down legislation all the time, how can you reasonably take that position.

    Seriously that is the activist judges argument anti-gay groups use

    There are rumors that he may have gotten a leak that the Court struck it down and that would explain him speaking the way he is.

    But I still don't think they did.

    did they put a bug on Kennedy?

    l8e1peic77w3.jpg

  • MrMonroeMrMonroe passed out on the floor nowRegistered User regular
    this panel of unelected justices, two of whom I appointed myself...

  • LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    I'm just super surprised that he took that route, like, I am not being sarcastic here

  • UbikUbik oh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by then Registered User regular
    there's that saying that if no one is happy with it, then it must be a proper compromise

    so maybe it's a good thing that nobody is completely happy with the Court

    l8e1peic77w3.jpg

  • LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    Speaking of the court, what are the chances if Obama wins, of shifting the majority?

  • Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus Registered User regular
    That statement is really bad, it makes Obama look desperate to me.

  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister It Gets Worse before it gets any better.Registered User regular
    i am like... 95 percent sure that Obama will be getting re-elected, and in his second term we'll see, as he said on mic in Russia, a president who is much less bound by the fetters of re-election.

  • Metzger MeisterMetzger Meister It Gets Worse before it gets any better.Registered User regular
    BY THE WAY; how is having to have health insurance any different from being forced to buy car insurance if you have a vehicle? i mean, granted, you can choose NOT to have a car, healthcare is a little different, but i see them as being fairly similar. maybe i'm missing the mark here, though.

  • UbikUbik oh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by then Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Langly wrote: »
    Speaking of the court, what are the chances if Obama wins, of shifting the majority?

    i'm gonna say low but i don't really follow SCOTUS gossip about who's thinking of stepping down

    although i guess death is always an option, they old

    Ubik on
    l8e1peic77w3.jpg

  • PharezonPharezon Struggle is an illusion. Victory is in the Qun.Registered User regular
    Jasconius wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

    would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?

    Killing the poor?

    jkZziGc.png
  • LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Ubik wrote: »
    there's that saying that if no one is happy with it, then it must be a proper compromise

    so maybe it's a good thing that nobody is completely happy with the Court

    Well you can definitely be unhappy with a decision, I often am. Trying to subvert their authority by saying that unelected officials shouldn't overturn legislation they find unconstitutional because that's a form of activism is silly.

    If anything, he should be on the solicitor general's ass every day because that was possibly the most important court date of his life and he argued like a freshmen in model un. Jesus how was he the guy.

    Langly on
  • captainkcaptaink TexasRegistered User regular
    BY THE WAY; how is having to have health insurance any different from being forced to buy car insurance if you have a vehicle? i mean, granted, you can choose NOT to have a car, healthcare is a little different, but i see them as being fairly similar. maybe i'm missing the mark here, though.

    That's the difference. The health insurance mandate would apply to everyone, full stop. (I think there are exceptions, but not many). Auto insurance is a obligation on you for choosing to use public roads. Also I believe auto insurance is a state law. States could mandate health insurance by themselves.

  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Ubik wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Langly wrote: »
    Uh the unelected courts strike down legislation all the time, how can you reasonably take that position.

    Seriously that is the activist judges argument anti-gay groups use

    There are rumors that he may have gotten a leak that the Court struck it down and that would explain him speaking the way he is.

    But I still don't think they did.

    did they put a bug on Kennedy?

    I have no idea I've just seen sites discussing a rumored leak and it would sort of explain the words of what seems to be a very frustrated President. I still don't believe it was overturned but I have difficulty understanding why Obama would issue this statement unless he were very concerned about the outcome.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • MysstMysst King Monkey of Hedonism IslandRegistered User regular
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

    would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?

    Killing the poor?

    but then who will work the factories?

    ikbUJdU.jpg
  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

    would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?

    Killing the poor?

    Yeah but he's not really doing that.

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    Mysst wrote: »
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

    would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?

    Killing the poor?

    but then who will work the factories?

    poorer people

  • LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    captaink wrote: »
    BY THE WAY; how is having to have health insurance any different from being forced to buy car insurance if you have a vehicle? i mean, granted, you can choose NOT to have a car, healthcare is a little different, but i see them as being fairly similar. maybe i'm missing the mark here, though.

    That's the difference. The health insurance mandate would apply to everyone, full stop. (I think there are exceptions, but not many). Auto insurance is a obligation on you for choosing to use public roads. Also I believe auto insurance is a state law. States could mandate health insurance by themselves.

    The thing is, you can choose to buy a car, or not, and if you don't you have no impact on the market and no risk to other people on the road.

    Everyone adds risk to the health insurance market, by virtue of being alive. Not having people in the market hurts everyone, and causes undue strain because people who don't will eventually need it, but not actually be paying. Also, by not buying in when you don't think you're going to be sick, and getting in later, you have a smaller pool of heavy users, which throws the thing off balance.

    Younger people need to buy in because it makes the system work, and because they will need it. That's why the car thing doesn't work.

  • LuvTheMonkeyLuvTheMonkey High Sierra Serenade Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

    would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?

    Killing the poor?

    Yeah but he's not really doing that.

    O415D.jpg

    Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.

    LuvTheMonkey on
    Molten variables hiss and roar. On my mind-forge, I hammer them into the greatsword Epistemology. Many are my foes this night.
    STEAM | GW2: Thalys
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    Ubik wrote: »
    JoeUser wrote: »
    Obama warns 'unelected' supreme court not to strike down healthcare law
    Barack Obama has said it would be wrong for the "unelected" supreme court to take the "unprecedented and extraordinary" decision to strike down his signature health care legislation when it was passed by an elected Congress.

    The comments suggest the president may make an election issue of those described by Democrats as partisan judges if they throw out the Affordable Care Act following last week's dramatic hearings at which the aggressive tide of questioning from some of the justices suggested that the conservative majority is hostile to the legislation. Their decision is expected in June.
    "I am confident that the supreme court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said.

    i don't know what to tell you dude if you think that's never happened before

    Only Liberal activist judges have done that before.

  • captainkcaptaink TexasRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Langly wrote: »
    captaink wrote: »
    BY THE WAY; how is having to have health insurance any different from being forced to buy car insurance if you have a vehicle? i mean, granted, you can choose NOT to have a car, healthcare is a little different, but i see them as being fairly similar. maybe i'm missing the mark here, though.

    That's the difference. The health insurance mandate would apply to everyone, full stop. (I think there are exceptions, but not many). Auto insurance is a obligation on you for choosing to use public roads. Also I believe auto insurance is a state law. States could mandate health insurance by themselves.

    The thing is, you can choose to buy a car, or not, and if you don't you have no impact on the market and no risk to other people on the road.

    Everyone adds risk to the health insurance market, by virtue of being alive. Not having people in the market hurts everyone, and causes undue strain because people who don't will eventually need it, but not actually be paying. Also, by not buying in when you don't think you're going to be sick, and getting in later, you have a smaller pool of heavy users, which throws the thing off balance.

    Younger people need to buy in because it makes the system work, and because they will need it. That's why the car thing doesn't work.

    I agree with Langly, but there is some merit to the car thing. That's our closest example, so it's kind of a good way to frame the discussion.

    captaink on
  • LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    Rand Paul isn't for killing poor people, in fact, they have it pretty good! He even says so, so you know it's true.

    http://paul.senate.gov/?p=blog&id=332

  • JasconiusJasconius sword criminal mad onlineRegistered User regular
    that bar graph really isn't all that offensive to me, actually

  • LockoutLockout I am still searching Registered User regular
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

    would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?

    Killing the poor?

    Yeah but he's not really doing that.

    O415D.jpg

    Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.

    seriously

    would like to see a defense of Paul Ryan's budget. it seems like such a fundamentally awful thing

    f24GSaF.jpg
  • AneurhythmiaAneurhythmia Registered User regular
    captaink wrote: »
    Langly wrote: »
    captaink wrote: »
    BY THE WAY; how is having to have health insurance any different from being forced to buy car insurance if you have a vehicle? i mean, granted, you can choose NOT to have a car, healthcare is a little different, but i see them as being fairly similar. maybe i'm missing the mark here, though.

    That's the difference. The health insurance mandate would apply to everyone, full stop. (I think there are exceptions, but not many). Auto insurance is a obligation on you for choosing to use public roads. Also I believe auto insurance is a state law. States could mandate health insurance by themselves.

    The thing is, you can choose to buy a car, or not, and if you don't you have no impact on the market and no risk to other people on the road.

    Everyone adds risk to the health insurance market, by virtue of being alive. Not having people in the market hurts everyone, and causes undue strain because people who don't will eventually need it, but not actually be paying. Also, by not buying in when you don't think you're going to be sick, and getting in later, you have a smaller pool of heavy users, which throws the thing off balance.

    Younger people need to buy in because it makes the system work, and because they will need it. That's why the car thing doesn't work.

    I agree with Langly, but there is some merit to the car thing. That's our closest example, so it's kind of a good way to frame the discussion.

    Not really though, because car insurance isn't mandated on the federal level.

  • AneurhythmiaAneurhythmia Registered User regular
    Jasconius wrote: »
    that bar graph really isn't all that offensive to me, actually

    You are okay with cutting funds to social safety nets to further cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans?

  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Jasconius wrote: »
    Pharezon wrote: »
    Jasconius wrote: »
    MrMonroe wrote: »
    a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way

    would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?

    Killing the poor?

    Yeah but he's not really doing that.

    O415D.jpg

    Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.

    Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.

    So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • HunterHunter Chemist with a heart of Au Registered User regular
    captaink wrote: »
    Langly wrote: »
    captaink wrote: »
    BY THE WAY; how is having to have health insurance any different from being forced to buy car insurance if you have a vehicle? i mean, granted, you can choose NOT to have a car, healthcare is a little different, but i see them as being fairly similar. maybe i'm missing the mark here, though.

    That's the difference. The health insurance mandate would apply to everyone, full stop. (I think there are exceptions, but not many). Auto insurance is a obligation on you for choosing to use public roads. Also I believe auto insurance is a state law. States could mandate health insurance by themselves.

    The thing is, you can choose to buy a car, or not, and if you don't you have no impact on the market and no risk to other people on the road.

    Everyone adds risk to the health insurance market, by virtue of being alive. Not having people in the market hurts everyone, and causes undue strain because people who don't will eventually need it, but not actually be paying. Also, by not buying in when you don't think you're going to be sick, and getting in later, you have a smaller pool of heavy users, which throws the thing off balance.

    Younger people need to buy in because it makes the system work, and because they will need it. That's why the car thing doesn't work.

    I agree with Langly, but there is some merit to the car thing. That's our closest example, so it's kind of a good way to frame the discussion.

    Not really though, because car insurance isn't mandated on the federal level.

    Unless Barrack Hussein Gecko gets elected and forces communist car insurance and English accents on all of us.

This discussion has been closed.