ObamaCare, the decision, and austerity

posted at 6:46 pm on July 2, 2012 by Karl

There is no government mandate requiring people to write about the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare, but you wouldn’t know that from visiting the internet. I briefly considered refereeing some of the fine points of the debate over whether there are Silver Linings in that decision. However, people’s opinions seem so entrenched for the time being that writing that sort of piece seems rather pointless. It might be more useful to look at Obamacare and the decision upholding it in the context of the future of American politics.

The central feature of those politics is the unsustainable increases in our debt and unfunded liabilities. Our future politics is likely to be dominated by the politics of loss. This has near-term implications for the fate of Obamacare, but the ramifications go beyond that.

After all, even an incipient fiscal crisis is unlikely to cause Democrats to convert to conservatism or libertarianism. In the debt-fueled political battles to come, most Democrats will likely cling to their traditional tax-and-spend philosophy. They will want to address the debt with the highest ratio of tax increases to spending “cuts” as they can extract politically. They will want to pretend taxes are not taxes and spending is not spending. They will try to devise ways of moving their agenda forward without taxes. They will try to devise ways to burden others with the costs of their agenda.

From this perspective, we can learn much from Obamacare and the decision upholding it. Knowingly or not, Obamacare is a bit of a trial run for the sort of tactics Democrats may increasingly employ as our fiscal crisis grows. In this context, the Supreme Court’s willingness to characterize the mandate penalty as a tax may encourage further dishonesty from the Democrats. In another sense, it is regrettable that if the mandate penalty is considered a tax, it is not considered as simply a lesser tax paid by those who opt out of our newly quasi-socialized health insurance program. Democrats likely colluded with the CBO to prevent the ostensibly private health insurance industry from becoming part of the federal budget — and as long as the same ol’ insurance companies remain in place, the right will be unlikely to get most Americans to realize what actually happened.

On the other hand, the decision that the mandate is a form of tax — as opposed to a regulation of commerce — helps ensure that the Democrats’ agenda will carry an economic and political price. Moreover, it is not as though Democrats were not already dishonest about the nature of the mandate. They insisted it was not a tax, then went to court arguing it was a tax and won. That history ought to shred Democrats’ credibility in similar future battles. That the Obama administration is still trying to claim it is not a tax is their tacit admission they will have an increasingly difficult time selling taxes going forward.

Even more broadly, regardless of its label, the mandate by any other name smelled as rank to most Americans. I read commentary suggesting that if Obamacare ever gets fully phased in, there will be no getting rid of it. I think that perspective does not account for the fact Social Security and Medicare were popular when passed, whereas Obamacare was not. That perspective also fails to account for the fact Social Security and Medicare were passed during an era where American politics were dominated about carving up America’s prosperity instead of accounting for America’s debts. That perspective further fails to account for the fact Social Security and Medicare are structured as traditional government entitlements, while Obamacare retains the facade of capitalism, which makes it much more vulnerable to repeal/replacement/reform not just next year, but every year. This is why so many Democrats loathe Rep. Paul Ryan’s Medicare reforms, despite their similarities to Obamacare.

The establishment may prefer a Grand Bargain based on the recommendations from the chairmen of the Bowles-Simpson commission on the debt crisis, which would retain Obamacare and impose further taxes. A majority of voters prefers neither retaining Obamacare nor increasing taxes. Moreover, the Bowles-Simpson recommendations seek to raise revenue through 1986-style tax reform: broadening the tax base while curtailing tax deductions. This approach runs contrary to the approach of Obamacare and Democrats generally (even the supposedly more responsible Bill Clinton) of engineering social policy and paying off favored party clients via the tax code. The Obama approach on taxes, while representing the core constituencies of the Democratic Party, is outside the establishment’s center-left approach.

Lastly (for now), the Supreme Court ruling that states have the ability to opt out of Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid may lead to substantially higher costs for the federal government. However, that is not an entirely bad thing going forward. If Obamacare will leave the taxpayer on the hook for an additional $500 billion or so in federal costs over the first decade, national Democrats ought to have to answer for it. As Justice Kennedy might say, federalism preserves liberty in part by preserving separate lines of political accountability. Restraining attempts by Washington to strong-arm state governments into bearing the burden of the Democrats’ national agenda likely will be increasingly important in the battles to come. How committed the Court will be to these principles remains to be seen; the right needs to be committed to them well before future disputes wind up in court.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.

Tags: , , , , , ,

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

thatsafactjack on May 14, 2013 at 2:43 PM

++++

pambi on May 14, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Law…but don’t ask it any legal questions because it will all of a sudden have to ‘run and go get dinner.’

Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Figures…It is clear a lot of the law degrees handed out by Harvard are nothing but political advocacy degrees.

I wonder what type of law does he practice? Constitutional, Criminal, Patent, etc.

William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:47 PM

I see the scumbags are still keeping some folks blood pressure up.

Carry on. I’m sure the trolls and HA enjoy y’all spending quality time lining their pockets.

cozmo on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM

qwertASRDRDDSAWAS1DFGSDFSGHG

thatsafactjack on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM

I wonder what type of law does he practice? Constitutional, Criminal, Patent, etc.

William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:47 PM

An expert in fraud with a specialty in libel.

NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM

if someone attended Harvard, Princeton, Yale, they wouldn’t attack me because they’d know it’s not a big deal

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 2:40 PM

As usual, you have forgotten.
A while back RWM took you to task.
And you went to dinner.

Damn, you are stupid !

Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM

I wonder what type of law does he practice? Constitutional, Criminal, Patent, etc.

William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Probably Divorce, so he can advocate for himself in the future. And you know what they say about a man who acts as his own lawyer…

Liam on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM

I wonder what type of law does he practice? Constitutional, Criminal, Patent, etc.

William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Perverted liberal.

cozmo on May 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Nice little company you got there….be a shame if anything happened to it.

MTF on May 14, 2013 at 2:49 PM

thatsafactjack on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM</blockquote
sorry… disregard… I was taking a call and inadvertently brushed the keys…lol!

thatsafactjack on May 14, 2013 at 2:50 PM

William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:47 PM

He has stated that he really was not much of a law student, so after he graduated he went into something else. I’m figuring it’s hospitality, cause he’s just so ingratiating.

BeachBum on May 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM

It will be a photo and art gallery consisting of nothing but Obama’s image.

NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Can I contribute my urine submerged likeness of teh one and a fecal smeared image of moochele?

freedomfirst on May 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Transgendered animal husbandry.

CurtZHP on May 14, 2013 at 2:38 PM

So he practices Transgender Animal Law?

You know not to be funny but does Harvard offer Transgender Animal Husbandry now? Yes I am serious considering the massive increase in the last 20 years in idiotic degrees that are useless no matter what school you graduated from.

William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Can I contribute my urine submerged likeness of teh one and a fecal smeared image of moochele?

freedomfirst on May 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM

That depends: Do you want to be impoverished by the IRS, or have your land stolen by the EPA?

NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 2:57 PM

He has stated that he really was not much of a law student, so after he graduated he went into something else. I’m figuring it’s hospitality, cause he’s just so ingratiating.

BeachBum on May 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Ok…It is all clear now. He went from a law student at Harvard to a Transgender student at Harvard. Not that there is anything wrong with that….

In fact that might be an improvement…

William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Figures…It is clear a lot of the law degrees handed out by Harvard are nothing but political advocacy degrees.

I wonder what type of law does he practice? Constitutional, Criminal, Patent, etc.

William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:47 PM

AGAIN, nobrain is NOT a graduate of Harvard or ANY law school.

Period.

Story.

End of.

The very first mention nobrain made of its alleged Harvard Law degree was in an attempt to try and bolster Obama’s credentials. Nobrain, erroneously, argued that the ELECTION of the President of the Harvard Law Review, as is the case with most law reviews, was a MERITORIOUS PROCESS. It claimed to know this because it went there.

Elections are not meritorious processes.

Mr. Obama was elected after a meeting of the review’s 80 editors that convened Sunday and lasted until early this morning, a participant said.

Until the 1970′s the editors were picked on the basis of grades, and the president of the Law Review was the student with the highest academic rank. Among these were Elliot L. Richardson, the former Attorney General, and Irwin Griswold, a dean of the Harvard Law School and Solicitor General under Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon.

That system came under attack in the 1970′s and was replaced by a program in which about half the editors are chosen for their grades and the other half are chosen by fellow students after a special writing competition. The new system, disputed when it began, was meant to help insure that minority students became editors of The Law Review.

Harvard, like a number of other top law schools, no longer ranks its law students for any purpose including a guide to recruiters.

Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Ok…It is all clear now. He went from a law student at Harvard to a Transgender student at Harvard. Not that there is anything wrong with that….

In fact that might be an improvement…

William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Sometimes I hate this blog, but the jokes/repartee here are why I keep coming back – ROFL!

22044 on May 14, 2013 at 3:01 PM

He has stated that he really was not much of a law student, so after he graduated he went into something else. I’m figuring it’s hospitality, cause he’s just so ingratiating.

BeachBum on May 14, 2013 at 2:53 PM

You know what’s hilarious about that? He talks about it like a Harvard Law degree is a BS, but you need a BS to get into a law school. How many people in this world get a BS, move on to law or medical school (and graduate!), then never actually practice law or medicine?

NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM

Succubus in chief

dirtengineer on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM

the GOP is like a pack of piranhas in a feeding frenzy and somehow tossed a bloody piece of meat overboard

suddenly, jobs and deficits no longer seem to matter *rolls eyes*

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 2:06 PM

That’s funny right there. I don’t care who you are.

There Goes the Neighborhood on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM

From now on:
nonpartisanElitist on May 14, 2013 at 2:40 PM

that’s the only thing that fits. Nobody cares what your credentials are, you are a louthesome loud mouth that doesn’t believe facts matter. Obama got admitted to Columbia by saying he was from Kenya…if not, why won’t he release his college transcripts? That’s some facts we’d all like to see…

kirkill on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM

The Ivy League has continued to turn out nothing but salivating inepts, who demand nothing but a premium for their arrogant elitist status over the paltry wages of the ignorant masses.

After going through a half-dozen of those inepts as CEO, our company finally wised-up and put the #2, a non-Ivy Leaguer, in charge.

Funny how well the company has managed, even in these dark times.

Turtle317 on May 14, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Nobrain, erroneously, argued that the ELECTION of the President of the Harvard Law Review, as is the case with most law reviews, was a MERITORIOUS PROCESS. It claimed to know this because it went there.

Let me clarify this;

Harvard, as with most law schools, ELECTS the President of its Law Review. The choice of President is NOT a meritorious process. That ceased in the 1970s.

Now, if nobrain considers ‘ox gets gored’ to be an ‘old people idiom,’ it quite obviously didn’t attend Harvard Law school when the old procedure was in place. Since it is ‘young,’ it would have attended under the new system where the President is ELECTED. Given the fact that it did not know this tells us that he never attended Harvard.

Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:06 PM

RWM, you misinterpret me

Becoming President of Law Review is a meritorious process since you need to be on law review to be President, and to get on law review depends on grades and a written test. So you cannot just become president of harvard law review through affirmative action or such as I was arguing against.

logic ain’t your strong suit, is it?

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:09 PM

NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM

I don’t believe he has a law degree either but IF, and that’s a Big IF, he does have one, it all points to not being able to pass the bar. As in JFK Jr. dumb.

BeachBum on May 14, 2013 at 3:09 PM

You know what’s hilarious about that? He talks about it like a Harvard Law degree is a BS, but you need a BS to get into a law school. How many people in this world get a BS, move on to law or medical school (and graduate!), then never actually practice law or medicine?

NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:04 PM

The ones who can’t pass their bar/licensing exams.

Lily on May 14, 2013 at 3:11 PM

The ones who can’t pass their bar/licensing exams.

Lily on May 14, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Yes. And these are the same clowns who seem to not understand the little important parts in the U.S. Constitutions that reads government shall not infringe.

Even a fifth grader understands that concept.

Turtle317 on May 14, 2013 at 3:14 PM

I never took the bar because I had no interest in practicing

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM

RWM, you misinterpret me

Becoming President of Law Review is a meritorious process since you need to be on law review to be President, and to get on law review depends on grades and a written test. So you cannot just become president of harvard law review through affirmative action or such as I was arguing against.

logic ain’t your strong suit, is it?

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:09 PM

It took me literally two seconds to look up the process. Before you attempt to bullsh!t your way through something a little research is advisable. Grades are irrelevant. The only thing anyone needs to do is write a paper. It is an entirely subjective process.

Harvard Law Review Membership Selection Policies

Membership in the Harvard Law Review is limited to second- and third-year law students who are selected on the basis of their performance on an annual writing competition. Harvard Law School students who are interested in joining the Review must write the competition at the end of their 1L year, even if they plan to take time off during law school or are pursuing a joint degree and plan to spend a year at another Harvard graduate school.

NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM

@RWM

RWM, you misinterpret me

In other words, you’re the one who isn’t bright enough to get his point, not that he can’t clearly make his case.

How many racist Dems over the years have caught heat for their obvious racism, then said the next day the exact same thing as the troll?

Liam on May 14, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Yes. And these are the same clowns who seem to not understand the little important parts in the U.S. Constitutions that reads government shall not infringe.

Even a fifth grader understands that concept.

Turtle317 on May 14, 2013 at 3:14 PM

And surely a Harvard Law grad would also know what natural law rights are, but our resident Harvard Law grad did not. He exposed that tidbit of monstrous ignorance in a gun grabbing thread maybe a month ago.

NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Notcoach: actually, Romney has a law degree from Harvard, I think… and has never “used it” per se, as an attorney.

He’s made hundreds of millions with the other half of his degree, the MBA.

Law’s actually a fantastic general degree. Hopefully it teaches you how to think. One of the biggest clues nonpartisan is not an attorney is in fact that she/he cannot think.

But if he or she DID go to law school, I dare him to list the very first case in Civil Procedure; where a court can exert personal jurisdiction over someone if they are in the state.

Vanceone on May 14, 2013 at 3:19 PM

I never took the bar because I had no interest in practicing

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM

What’s your BS or BA in and where did you get it?

NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:19 PM

I never took the bar because I had no interest in practicing

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Then why did you stay in school at it, and rack up all that student loan debt you were whining about the other day?

Is your real name Niel N. Bobb?

Or is that what you do?

Liam on May 14, 2013 at 3:20 PM

I never took the bar because I had no interest in practicing

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Who spends a minimum of $227,700.00 on law school, and puts up with the bullshit that is part and parcel of going to law school, but isn’t interested in practicing law?

totherightofthem on May 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM

He exposed that tidbit of monstrous ignorance in a gun grabbing thread maybe a month ago.

NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Duly noted, sir! I see I was not on the side of error.

Turtle317 on May 14, 2013 at 3:21 PM

I never took the bar because I had no interest in practicing

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Harvard Law and no interest in practicing. Beautiful. Just beautiful.

Having Mother around to help out on the bill is just icing on the cake.
Sound like a trust fund baby to me.

Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Becoming President of Law Review is a meritorious process since you need to be on law review to be President, and to get on law review depends on grades and a written test. So you cannot just become president of harvard law review through affirmative action or such as I was arguing against.

logic ain’t your strong suit, is it?

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Affirmative action was not the issue.

OK troll boy I’ll bite. How or in what way has Obama demonstrated intellectual prowess—-the “uhhhhs” or the “folks”? Any evidence of written persuasive articles or legislation he was out front on while senator? Class president, debate team, etc.?

arnold ziffel on May 1, 2013 at 7:09 PM

Columbia BA

Harvard JD

Harvard Law Review

First black president of HLR

Law Professor at Chicago

His speaking prowess is on display for everyone to witness

He outdebated Hillary, McCain, Romney demonstrating his remarkable cool and ability to think on his feet (hint: no teleprompters at debates)

nonpartisan on May 1, 2013 at 7:14 PM

His election as the ‘First black president of HLR’ did not involve a meritorious process.

to get on law review depends on grades and a written test.

Here’s how it works. At the end of 1L, you can enter the LR writing competition. At Harvard, 46 1Ls are invited to join every year. 20 are chosen solely based on their comp scores. 14 are chosen based on comp and grades. The remaining 12 are discretionary slots, which professors and 3Ls fill as they choose. Under Harvard’s policy, affirmative action goals CAN be used to fill the slots even if the invited did not perform well in the comp or have lower grades – I’m not saying this relative to Obama. You brought up AA.

Sooooo, 26% of the slots filled at the end of 1L are done so on a purely discretionary basis.

Finally, the President is ELECTED by the editors (80 when Obama was elected, 88 now).

Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Considering the pedigree, nonpartisan sure is stupid.

Keep the heat on !

Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 3:38 PM

logic ain’t your strong suit, is it?

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Logic is something you wouldn’t know if it walked up behind you and poked you in the ass. It goes along with honesty with you….

I’ve never lied. Show me ONE statement where I’ve lied.

nonpartisan on May 7, 2013 at 10:26 PM

Yes, you have.

I just need to correct this LIE.

I did NOT post on the day of Sandy Hook, even that week iirc.

You are LYING about me. If you claim I posted on that day, then show me one post of mine from that day.

nonpartisan on May 7, 2013 at 11:31 PM

Busted again… How about three?

Are you assuming the gunman got his gun in Connecticut? Gun control laws limit access to guns, it doesn’t prevent someone from getting a gun in another state and bringing it into the state, dumbass.

nonpartisan on December 14, 2012 at 1:11 PM

When you have guns and alot of ammo in a small space, its not difficult to kill alot of people in a very short amount of time.

nonpartisan on December 14, 2012 at 1:14 PM

gun laws won’t work on a state by state basis

guns need to be banned from the country period.

the argument that guns dont kill people, people do is retarded. of course guns dont kill by themselves, but guns allow crazy emotional people to inflict crazy damage in a short period of time.

I’m pissed beyond belief that this unnecessary tragedy continues to happen…

for all the gun supporters, answer me this:

How many mass shooting tragedies has occurred in countries with complete bans on guns versus the US? That defeats any stupid arguments you have.

nonpartisan on December 14, 2012 at 1:24 PM

And, there are many, many, many more…

Still waiting on those answers about Vidal, Holy Trinity, Reynolds, and Everson.

Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:41 PM

You just never quit, do you you?

~thumbs up~

Liam on May 14, 2013 at 3:45 PM

~thumbs up~

Liam on May 14, 2013 at 3:45 PM

your ass? sorry couldn’t resist…

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Harvard must have an affirmative action slot for moron.

BeachBum on May 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Affirmative action was not the issue.

Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 3:34 PM

actually, it was the issue. Maybe not directly stated, but the underlying argument was that Obama got all his impressive credentials (Colubmia, Harvard, Law Review) not on his merit (which would prove his intellectual credence) but through affirmative action because of the color of his skin

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM

your ass? sorry couldn’t resist…

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:47 PM

Feeling a little defensive?

NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM

actually, it was the issue. Maybe not directly stated, but the underlying argument was that Obama got all his impressive credentials (Colubmia, Harvard, Law Review) not on his merit (which would prove his intellectual credence) but through affirmative action because of the color of his skin

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM

He did. Lied his way into Columbia, and was rushed through Harvard. All because of the color of his skin. He is our first affirmative action president. I think it’s high time to abandon affirmative action entirely.

NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:51 PM

your ass? sorry couldn’t resist…

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:47 PM

How about you go play Switch. Stuff one thumb up your ass and the other in your nose, and wait for someone to yell, “Switch!”

Liam on May 14, 2013 at 3:51 PM

actually, it was the issue. Maybe not directly stated, but the underlying argument was that Obama got all his impressive credentials (Colubmia, Harvard, Law Review) not on his merit (which would prove his intellectual credence) but through affirmative action because of the color of his skin

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Actually, it wasn’t…your Dowderisation notwithstanding.

READ THE THREAD. YOU BROUGHT UP HIS ‘INTELLIGENCE’ FIRST. YOU WERE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP ‘ALL OF HIS IMPRESSIVE CREDENTIALS.’

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/05/01/jay-carney-hey-benghazi-happened-a-long-time-ago/comment-page-1/#comments

Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 4:00 PM

actually, it was the issue. Maybe not directly stated, but the underlying argument

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM

LIAR.

Resist We Much on May 14, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Oh, I’m sorry RWM, I’m not familiar with these old people idioms.

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Education must be lacking.

dominigan on May 14, 2013 at 4:03 PM

What is your degree in?

William Eaton on May 14, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Claims a Law degree from Harvard.

Has never left a post that would support said degree.

Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 2:45 PM

I believe that NP really did attend Harvard Law
n Maintenance Community College.

slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2013 at 4:05 PM

actually, it was the issue. Maybe not directly stated, but the underlying argument was that Obama got all his impressive credentials (Colubmia, Harvard, Law Review) not on his merit (which would prove his intellectual credence) but through affirmative action because of the color of his skin

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM

He did. Lied his way into Columbia, and was rushed through Harvard. All because of the color of his skin. He is our first affirmative action president. I think it’s high time to abandon affirmative action entirely.

NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:51 PM

I’ll state it outright, he got into Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard ALL on the basis of affirmative action.

All of his work was graded on the basis of affirmative action.

All of his degrees were awarded on the basis of affirmative action.

That’s the very nature of affirmative action, and anyone that doesn’t understand that is a dumbass. It means his ‘credentials’ aren’t really all that impressive.

slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2013 at 4:09 PM

What that Leftist, baby-killing witch is doing is nothing less than extortion. She should be impeached.

WannabeAnglican on May 14, 2013 at 4:31 PM

*rolls eyes* nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 2:06 PM

So gay.

Akzed on May 14, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Why do most of our trolls seem to be gay?

slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Why do most of our trolls seem to be gay?

slickwillie2001 on May 14, 2013 at 4:40 PM

They don’t seem to be gay.

Most gay guys I know have more testosterone than these scumbag punks.

They don’t rate as high as beta on their best days.

cozmo on May 14, 2013 at 4:51 PM

actually, it was the issue. Maybe not directly stated, but the underlying argument was that Obama got all his impressive credentials (Colubmia, Harvard, Law Review) not on his merit (which would prove his intellectual credence) but through affirmative action because of the color of his skin

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 3:48 PM

Absent his transcripts, the vacuum can be filled with any old theory that happens by.

Really, there exists NO evidence of his “intellectual credence”

You Harvard folks just assume it. Wrongly as you have proven.

Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 4:52 PM

Why did my reply to slickwillie2001 disappear into moderation hell?

NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 4:54 PM

non-profits that are working to enroll uninsured Americans

Why in the hell are any non-governmental organizations being paid to implement law?

BacaDog on May 14, 2013 at 4:55 PM

BacaDog on May 14, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Because like many churches, they are sucking at the government teet.

Churches are cutting their own throats pimping for the government.

cozmo on May 14, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Why in the hell are any non-governmental organizations being paid to implement law?

BacaDog on May 14, 2013 at 4:55 PM

Because the Dems f*cked up and are now, as EJ says, on the Strugglebus.

Jabberwock on May 14, 2013 at 5:01 PM

nonpartisan looking dimwitted as ever. No way that one even gradiated high screwel. No way.

CW on May 14, 2013 at 6:16 PM

She has to go. Unrepentant recidivist. The definition of partisan hack.

FireBlogger on May 14, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Nasty, vile treasonous wench. May your judgement match your evil heart.

However, in the meantime you can hang around in abortion clinics performing 3rd and 4th trimester abortions and get your jollies. Might even be able to make some shoes or pens out of them.

acyl72 on May 14, 2013 at 6:54 PM

What’s your [Nonpartisan's] BS or BA in and where did you get it?

NotCoach on May 14, 2013 at 3:19 PM

I haven’t seen nonpartisan’s answer yet.

Barnestormer on May 14, 2013 at 7:30 PM

thatsafactjack on May 14, 2013 at 2:48 PM</blockquote
sorry… disregard… I was taking a call and inadvertently brushed the keys…lol!

thatsafactjack on May 14, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Thanks for the clarification. The Internet Slang Directory was going crazy!

AesopFan on May 14, 2013 at 7:45 PM

I love her expression. It’s always the same and always projects complete contempt for the people.

JellyToast on May 14, 2013 at 10:24 PM

if someone attended Harvard, Princeton, Yale, they wouldn’t attack me because they’d know it’s not a big deal

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Non sequitur.

Everyone observes the non-relevance by the content of every single one of your posts.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 15, 2013 at 1:11 AM

Sebelius should be impeached. This regime is nothing but a gang of crooks.

nonpartisan on May 14, 2013 at 2:40 PM

They might just ignore you because you’re full of shit.

dogsoldier on May 15, 2013 at 6:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 2