Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

OT-P: President Obama Booed After Thanking Boston For Kevin Youkilis « CBS Boston

Political loyalties aren’t as strong as team loyalties.


NOTE: As I discussed in the Off-Topics, Politics, and the Redesign thread, in the redesign I’m making non-baseball content opt-in. Until the redesign is done (about two months), I’m designating one thread each month (similar to the basketball and soccer threads) as Off-Topic Politics (OT-P) and will restrict off-topic political conversations to that thread. Off-topic political comments which appear in other threads will be deleted. Since this thread has been highjacked, I’m designating this thread as the June OT-P thread.

Jim Furtado Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:52 AM | 1396 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: red sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 4 of 14 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›
   301. Morty Causa Posted: June 26, 2012 at 05:15 PM (#4167112)
That's only because it's next door to Louisiana.
   302. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4167113)
I work on (a) an Air Force base in (b) the middle of Alabama. I probably interact with fewer than 2 liberals in a given day.
   303. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 05:23 PM (#4167119)
301: Fair enough, I won't argue that the best food in America is in the South and the best food in the South is in Louisiana.
   304. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 05:35 PM (#4167128)
301: Fair enough, I won't argue that the best food in America is in the South and the best food in the South is in Louisiana.


The fact that I became a vegetarian while living near New Orleans tells me that I could probably do anything in the world if I put my mind to it.
   305. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4167130)
Northerner here, 301/303, all true.
   306. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4167139)
304: surely you aren't one of those crazy doctrinaire vegetarians and still partake of the bounty of the seas, yes? You almost had me believing you'd eschew a summer crawfish boil in favor of some mushy tofu! Ah, mirth!
   307. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4167145)
304: surely you aren't one of those crazy doctrinaire vegetarians and still partake of the bounty of the seas, yes? You almost had me believing you'd eschew a summer crawfish boil in favor of some mushy tofu! Ah, mirth!


I went all the way. (Note: Being an innately Bad Person, I'm no longer a vegetarian, though I probably eat meat -- & hardly ever red meat, at that -- maybe once a week, if that.) No shrimp, no catfish, no nothing. Never have felt compelled to sample crawfish, except maybe in etouffe once.
   308. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4167147)
Speaking of phony, please note that Kerry tossed someone else's medals over the fence. He kept his own.
Several people have said this in this thread, at least one going so far as to call it "delicious". While the statement may be true in a strict sense, the implication-by-omission seems like the product of the right wing spin machine, worming its way as always into your conservative brains.

Wikipedia claims that "Kerry threw some of his decorations as well as some given to him by other veterans to throw."

Here is an article from a firsthand witness, who says that Kerry threw his own ribbons as well as various things that other people had given him to throw. Never pretended to be throwing all of his decorations are, did what he did in plain sight, etc. Article concludes by essentially politely calling the people who harp on "THREW SOMEONE ELSE'S MEDALS" misleading jackasses.

So it seems like it's possibly true in some sense, wherein "ribbons" may not strictly be "medals" (whereas both are "decorations" and in fact there are specific ribbons given out specifically with, and specifically representing, specific medals), the implication is just typical right wing fever swamp material. He never claimed to be throwing his own "medals" specifically; he did throw his own decorations, potentially including those representing medals; the decorations of other people that he threw were specifically given to him so that he could throw them over.

If any of you wingnuts have a better explanation than "THREW SOMEONE ELSE'S MEDALS" being right wing fever swamp material with implications by omission and misleading phrasing, and evidence to prove it, I'm all ears.
   309. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4167150)
Here is the game I like to play with these threads - read ONLY the first ten and the last ten comments. Then imagine how to connect the dots in between.
I'm guessing that Youk is experiencing significant genetic drift since the trade. Right?


Any change in Kevin Youkilis' genetics would automatically have to be an improvement.
   310. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:16 PM (#4167154)
I really like that Obama seems committed to quietly achieving unprecedented gender balance and racial diversity on the Supreme Court; I just wish that "diversity" would extend to the judges' schools and experience. Maybe the greatest legal mind in the country is some Town Lawyer in South Dakota, or a public defender in Georgia, or a trial judge in New Mexico. We'll never know, because no one will ever look.
Come on. This is overcompensating. That's like arguing that maybe the most talented starting pitcher in the country is really some guy who's a pitching coach for an NCAA baseball team. Yeah, anything's possible -- but (a) this person has done nothing to actually demonstrate it, and (b) the types of things he does are not representative of what MLB players do.
   311. rr Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4167178)
That you guys can't behave yourselves isn't my problem. It is your problem. I guess in your world if a segment on breast feeding shows up on TV in a show you are watching, it's perfectly OK for your kids to start crudely talking about the breasts of the girls in their classes.


Couple of points here:

1. DiPerna and I have both been civil in this thread, and I have only posted in it once until this point. And DiPerna as he noted did not get involved at all until #205. What you said above was less civil than anything I said to Eso or about you IMO, and although DiPerna was sarcastic, he wasn't really that nasty (YMMV).
2. I simply said that I thought it was funny, in view of the all sturm und drang about political threads, that you posted this. It doesn't bother me in the least that you did so, and if it did, I would simply go talk about baseball on another thread or go back to the NBA Thread. Given the site's history, however, it was unrealistic to think that the thread would die after 20 jokey posts about Obama and Youkilis, particularly in an election year.

I also notice that DiPerna and I got called out for going a little meta, whereas this post from Joey B seemingly got a pass:


Look at the number of responses already: over 200 in like eight hours. There's your answer.

It couldn't be more obvious that all the stuff about the redesign of the site is a total bunch of B.S.
   312. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 07:43 PM (#4167220)
Come on. This is overcompensating. That's like arguing that maybe the most talented starting pitcher in the country is really some guy who's a pitching coach for an NCAA baseball team.


One interesting theory would be that "what David Nieporent believes is the perfect and only qualification for SCOTUS justice is not, in fact, the perfect and only means a person could be qualified to be a SCOTUS justice."

Another theory might go so far as to suggest that there exist multiple paths via which someone might qualify to be a justice, and no candidate must pass through only the Gates of David.

A final idea is that no matter how much he whinges and cries, practical experience dictates that Elena Kagan is obviously more qualified to be justice of the SCOTUS than David Neiporent, and all of his whinging about her "judicial reasoning" is little more than sour grapes.
   313. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: June 26, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4167227)
Come on. This is overcompensating. That's like arguing that maybe the most talented starting pitcher in the country is really some guy who's a pitching coach for an NCAA baseball team. Yeah, anything's possible -- but (a) this person has done nothing to actually demonstrate it, and (b) the types of things he does are not representative of what MLB players do.

OK, I was exaggerating to make a point.
But I'd considered the baseball analogy. Most of the Court comes up from the federal circuits, so, sure, the things they do are a lot like what the Supreme Court does. Most federal appellate judges started as either federal prosecutors or federal bureaucrats. Any other kind of lawyer (or a non-lawyer) could be appointed, though, and could be effective in the role despite never having been a federal appellate judge. I don't see how those jobs demonstrate Supreme Court skills any better than, say, that public defender in Georgia.

I understand that no one cares about this kind of diversity, so it will not have any effect on actual Court selections. Obama is not going to say, "Hey, an Ohio state district court judge, perfect" (and neither will any other President). But it's odd and interesting to me that the Supreme Court has become so limited in this way, to draw from this relatively tiny pool of potential Justices.
   314. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4167229)
   315. nick swisher hygiene Posted: June 26, 2012 at 08:18 PM (#4167242)
been here for years, rarely-and-I-mean-RARELY get involved in this kind of thread, but....

I just read Furtado's #259 [edit: the post RR just quoted in his #311].

Then I read it again, to see if it really said what I thought it said.

Holy ####.

Dude, you wanna troll your own blog, go right ahead; but trolling your own blog and not owning up to it when called on it? Not a good look.
   316. zenbitz Posted: June 26, 2012 at 08:30 PM (#4167252)
@314, agree - that guy nails it. I suppose it's just that "we all" were brainwashed in grammer school to believe that the US Constitution is holy writ.
   317. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: June 26, 2012 at 08:30 PM (#4167253)
Oh, by the way, this is a brilliant blog post about the intellectual bankruptcy of Constitutional theory.
Will Wilkinson is one of the most annoying liberaltarian commentators around (though I admit my view of him is colored by my personal interactions with him as well as those of my friends -- he is really quite the supercilious prat in person), but this is a decent enough point.

And it explains why Clarence Thomas is my favorite Supreme Court justice by a wide margin: because whether you like his POV or not, he has a very consistent view of what Constitution does and does not allow and he follows it relentlessly, even when it takes him to places where he personally does not want to go. THAT is the true test of principle, and it gives the lie to Wilkinson's thesis that judges just reverse-engineer their personal opinions about what they like and don't like to fit them into "constitutional"/"non-constitutional" boxes.

Gonzales v. Raich, the medical marijuana case, is a perfect example of this: Thomas wrote a fantastic dissenting opinion where he made clear that although he obviously thought smoking weed was a stupid habit, that the federal government nevertheless had absolutely no business regulating the growth of marijuana for personal consumption under its Interstate Commerce Clause powers. (In other words: Wickard v. Filburn was wrongly decided.) Meanwhile Scalia sold his soul and joined the majority upholding federal interference, even though he voted with the earlier majorities in Lopez and Morrison.

In a nutshell that's why I consider Scalia to be something of a hack (albeit a brilliant hack) and Thomas to be the most principled conservative/libertarian on the Court: he actually DOESN'T 'cheat' intellectually to find his way to an outcome that squares with his personal beliefs. Instead he goes where he believes the Constitution forces him to go, whether he wants to be there or not. (Lawrence v. Texas is another example: Thomas said in his dissent that he thought the TX anti-sodomy statute was an uncommonly terrible law, and that he would have sought to overturn it if he were a member of the TX legislature, but that this was the job of the state legislature to overturn and not the federal courts since he couldn't find anything in the Constitution that prohibited Texas from passing these sorts of benighted, stupid laws.)
   318. Ron J Posted: June 26, 2012 at 08:31 PM (#4167254)
#114 Yeah National Lampoon's True Facts has a record of printing urban legends as facts, but there is an item (called "True Government") where a guy running for mayor of Otsu is reported to have cut off his little finger to show that he was (quotes in the article, though if true I'm doubtful he was speaking English) "earnest and determined enough to stake my life" and "This is to prove my intentions are honorable and I stand by them as a man"

Dunno. I think I'd believe his sincerity, but crazy plus sincere is not exactly what I'm looking for in a politician.
   319. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 08:34 PM (#4167259)
I suppose it's just that "we all" were brainwashed in grammer school to believe that the US Constitution is holy writ.


Yep. Folks around here (and in general) treat the Constitution the way evangelical literalists treat the Bible. Nothing good comes from any of it.

Example: the commerce clause doesn't actually say anything useful, for either side. It's a nebulous piece of crap, textually. You can see in it any goddamned thing you like.
   320. Morty Causa Posted: June 26, 2012 at 08:43 PM (#4167272)
Yes, people do it with almost any text, to a lesser or greater degree. Give 'em a text, make it important, and they'll begin reading stuff into it. There will be a tendency to make it holy writ. And once it becomes holy, it's holiness is the major substantive issue. It's always there--you have to go around it, through it, over it.

But, what's worse, is once those with the power of concencration decree, it's almost impossible (without violence) to gainsay what they decree. They become holy. Priests and their writs. We need guides; we need guides that are institulionalized in our system. We don't need this pull toward an unquestioning holiness. That is a big problem. That needs to be degraded.
   321. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 26, 2012 at 08:45 PM (#4167275)
Yes, people do it with almost any text, to a lesser or greater degree. Give 'em a text, make it important, and they'll begin reading stuff into it. There will be a tendency to make it holy writ. And once it becomes holy, it's holiness is the major substantive issue. It's always there--you have to go around it, through it, over it.


This is why 85% of all libertarians are lawyers or programmers.
   322. Ron J Posted: June 26, 2012 at 08:53 PM (#4167285)
#156 Dunno. I think Jonathan Bernstein makes a pretty good case for Cheney's lack of competence.
   323. Ron J Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:08 PM (#4167303)
#214 I know it's received wisdom that Kerry and Dole ran bad campaigns, but Jonathan Bernstein's took a quick look at what the fundamentals (those shown by Nate Silver and others to work best) said and both Kerry and Dole out-performed those fundamentals.

Doesn't prove that they didn't run bad campaigns, but Jonathan's fundamental point is that what passes for analysis generally starts with the result and works backwards.

Not saying I agree with Jonathan's point -- my recollection of Kerry's campaign is not positive. But I think the approach he's taken has an awful lot of merit.
   324. Morty Causa Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:20 PM (#4167317)
314:

1. Start with a political philosophy–a view of what you want the government to be able to do and what you want to the government to to be forbidden from doing.

2. Take the Constitution as a given.

3. Reverse engineer a theory of constitutional interpretation such that it turns out–happily!–that the Constitution forbids what you want it to forbid and allows what you want it to allow.


Can there be any doubt about this? Yet, we all pretend we make arguments detached from our psychology. It's ludicrous.


Mark Twain, as usual, sums it up neatly:

No man ever believes that the Bible [read Constitution or whatever] means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.


But, remember, the difference is power. You and I have our views, and so does the Supreme Court. But it has an army and navy to go along with it's undeniable edicts.
   325. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:49 PM (#4167348)
And it explains why Clarence Thomas is my favorite Supreme Court justice by a wide margin: because whether you like his POV or not, he has a very consistent view of what Constitution does and does not allow and he follows it relentlessly, even when it takes him to places where he personally does not want to go


I agree with this, and am quite certain (though like others up thread I rarely have reason to dig into SC case law anymore) I could recognize his opinions above all others on the Court, though Scalia definitely has a recognizable style too. Thomas and Bryer are the most interesting two justices to hear speak, no matter the topic.
   326. willcarrolldoesnotsuk Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:54 PM (#4167356)
I don't think that that "No man ever believes the Bible means what it says" thing is not Twain; it's a paraphrase of a quote by George Bernard Shaw.

It's possible Twain did say it and Shaw just said something very similar, I guess; I don't know 100% that Twain didn't say it. I do know that Shaw said something very similar to it.
   327. Morty Causa Posted: June 26, 2012 at 09:59 PM (#4167362)
Thanks. It does seem that more sources on the net credit Shaw. Shaw's good, too.
   328. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 26, 2012 at 11:29 PM (#4167431)
But I'd considered the baseball analogy. Most of the Court comes up from the federal circuits, so, sure, the things they do are a lot like what the Supreme Court does. Most federal appellate judges started as either federal prosecutors or federal bureaucrats.
You forgot the academy.
Any other kind of lawyer (or a non-lawyer) could be appointed, though, and could be effective in the role despite never having been a federal appellate judge. I don't see how those jobs demonstrate Supreme Court skills any better than, say, that public defender in Georgia.
Really?

Look, if you tell me that having served as a p.d. would be a useful experience for a justice, I'll agree wholeheartedly. As would having served as a trial judge. Or an ALJ. Or a litigator. But those should be in addition to time spent on the appellate bench, not instead of. That's both because being an appellate judge is good training for being a justice, and because, from the perspective of everyone else, there's no way to evaluate how good a justice a person can be if this person has spent their whole career plea bargaining on behalf of guys caught in buy-and-busts.
   329. tshipman Posted: June 26, 2012 at 11:47 PM (#4167436)
That's both because being an appellate judge is good training for being a justice, and because, from the perspective of everyone else, there's no way to evaluate how good a justice a person can be if this person has spent their whole career plea bargaining on behalf of guys caught in buy-and-busts.


I agree with this statement. David, are you ever concerned at how difficult it is for SC justices to get confirmed now-a-days? It seems like you can't ever have said something interesting on abortion, guns or pot. That bothers me.

In short, we don't even get the best legal minds from the appellate court. We get the ones that people think can get confirmed.
   330. BrianBrianson Posted: June 27, 2012 at 05:02 AM (#4167470)
I work on (a) an Air Force base in (b) the middle of Alabama. I probably interact with fewer than 2 liberals in a given day.


There's a strong observation bias here too, though. I work as an academic in hard science, so the few conservatives that are around mostly shut up at work, since they're outnumbered 20:1. In grad school, I think there were probably 20 socialists, 20 liberals, and a conservative; he didn't have much of a chance. I've no idea if anyone I'll talk to today votes Tory (or BNP!?), but I know they won' mention it; any political discussion is likely to be effectively "Labour is too socially conservative, and LibDem is too fiscally conservative.", and draw close to consensus. So outliers visibility is suppressed.
   331. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: June 27, 2012 at 07:30 AM (#4167479)
whereas this post from Joey B seemingly got a pass:
Well, even Jim probably has Joey B. on ignore.
   332. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: June 27, 2012 at 08:22 AM (#4167486)
Robinred must have been that brown-nosing dweeb kid in elementary school who always ratted out his classmates to the teacher.
   333. Lassus Posted: June 27, 2012 at 09:19 AM (#4167504)
Robinred must have been that brown-nosing dweeb kid in elementary school who always ratted out his classmates to the teacher.

I'm guessing you were the one who constantly didn't have the nuts to own up to anything he said or did.
   334. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: June 27, 2012 at 10:42 AM (#4167582)
Really good piece by Richard Posner on Scalia's dissent in Arizona: http://tinyurl.com/79npea6
   335. Jim Furtado Posted: June 27, 2012 at 10:45 AM (#4167584)
Dude, you wanna troll your own blog, go right ahead; but trolling your own blog and not owning up to it when called on it? Not a good look.

This may be a shock but reading political threads isn't my first priority in life. I haven't had time to follow-up on this thread as I was busy with my wife last night and I am at work today. I still don't have time to read the last few pages. I have read this page.

I assume there were responses. I also assume they are the same responses I have gotten when I have made similar comments in the past, so....

The idea that any post which mentions the current President must devolve into a rancorous discussion is laughable just like the mention of breasts doesn't give people permission to go Beavis and Butthead and just like wearing a short dress doesn't open a woman up to crude comments.

Also, the idea that I haven't responded or taken someone to task for something written here doesn't mean the person has gotten a pass. It either means I have already tried to addressed the issue with a blanket statement or I haven't read it.

When I have more time I will catch up on the thread and will try to respond to both the silly comments and the valid questions.

If you haven't gathered by now, I do not enjoy babysitting these threads. With the redesign, those of you who belligerently blather on and on will be free to do so with a lot less hassle from me. (BTW, if you are offended by this comment I probably am talking about you; if you are not, I probably am not talking about you.)

   336. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 27, 2012 at 12:10 PM (#4167673)
The idea that any post which mentions the current President must devolve into a rancorous discussion is laughable just like the mention of breasts doesn't give people permission to go Beavis and Butthead and just like wearing a short dress doesn't open a woman up to crude comments.


As I said before, "Holy terrible analogy Batman!"

Plus I'm dumbfounded that after all this time running a website you would assert that a mention of the current President should not be expected to "devolve into a rancorous discussion."

I am also a bit dismayed by your assertion that the political disagreements expressed here are akin to Beavis and Butthead slobbering and saying, "hee hee, he said breastmeat" or some such thing. For what its worth the caliber of political discussion here, trolling included, tends to be far higher than at overtly political sites.
   337. SandyRiver Posted: June 27, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4167684)
Seriously, though, those who believe in a literal reading of the [Protestant] Bible* how do they answer the question: "where did Cain's wife come from?" Generally they respond by angrily denouncing the person asking the question.

*An assertion that the Christian bible is meant to be read literally is a relatively recent phenomena


Fools walk in...
This literalist, and all those of my acquaintance, would freely offer the obvious answer: it was his sister.
Two points:
1. The laws transcribed by Moses, including those condemning incest, came many centuries after Cain's lifetime. There were no biblical prohibitions on it when Adam's and Eve's kids were making families.
2. Most literalists believe that many of the debilitating aspects of sin's entrance into the world (thru the serpent's deception) occurred gradually. One can see that viewpoint in the Bible, the many-century lifespans prior to the Noahic flood, Abraham dying at 175, Moses at 120 about 5 centuries later, to the "threescore and ten" of the psalmist. The inference is that the genetic issues related to inbreeding did not become significant until many years had passed since the forbidden fruit was eaten.

*The "assertion" may be relatively recent, but the assumption of literalism functioned from New Testament days (probably for Old Testament times, too) pretty much up thru the Enlightenment. The persecutions of Copernicus and Galileo, though based on misinterpretations of scripture, illustrate the literalist assumption. They also illustrate that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God."
   338. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 27, 2012 at 12:20 PM (#4167686)
(BTW, if you are offended by this comment I probably am talking about you; if you are not, I probably am not talking about you.)


Well, that leaves me out.
   339. Guapo Posted: June 27, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4167707)
This literalist, and all those of my acquaintance, would freely offer the obvious answer: it was his sister.


If being a literalist means you get to make #### up, sign me up!
   340. Tripon Posted: June 27, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4167718)
Can we go back to talking how much of a sociopath that John Edwards is?
   341. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 27, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4167752)
No, no, back to how people in Boston don't like negroes.
   342. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 27, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4167756)
If being a literalist means you get to make #### up, sign me up!


yes.
You see in Genesis Ch 1, Adam and Eve are told to be fruitful and multiply- and they (before the fall- i.e., being kicked out of Eden) obeyed and were fruitful and multiplied....

or, you see their is a later reference to Eve having many children after Seth- some of whom were undoubtedly daughters, and Cain and Abel were already adults when Cain slew Abel (and people lived several hundred years back then dontcha know) of course that requires accepting that Genesis is not written in strict chronological order,,,

so Adam and Eve had Seth and then lived 800 years after that having many sons and daughters and one of those daughters became Cain's wifie at some point in time?



   343. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 27, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4167758)
Can we go back to talking how much of a sociopath that John Edwards is?
  

No, no, back to how people in Boston don't like negroes.


Sometimes you people are no fun at all.
   344. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 27, 2012 at 02:11 PM (#4167792)
If being a literalist means you get to make #### up, sign me up!


It also allows you to magically find human rights in the "personhood" of corporations too.
   345. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 27, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4167850)
It also allows you to magically find human rights in the "personhood" of corporations too.


but Corporations are made up of people!!!

getting back to 337

would freely offer the obvious answer: it was his sister.


or as the commentary to the online version of the King James Bible puts it:
To address the question of "where did Cain find a wife?" That's an easy one. It was his sister.

that back and forth gets a little prickly, and some exasperated soul asks:
GOOD LORD GOD ALMIGHTY PEOPLE ...............
How does the first born grandson of the first two people on the planet become a great builder and build a city????
why is Cain so worried about everyone trying to kill him ?? who is there ?? Adam and Eve then him and now his brother is dead so .... again who are all the people that will want to kill him
Where did all the people come from to fill this city that was built by the first born son of the second child born on the planet???
Where did Cain find a wife???

by the time she gives birth to the third recorded son Seth,(whom is by her claim the son to replace Able whom was slain by Cain),.... his nephew Enoch is a father.....whom has built a city!!

come on people WHERE DO ALL THE PEOPLE COME FROM ????????


The final response, after explaining that Adam and Eve had heaps of youn-uns in their 900 odd years (and their being no laws against incest back then):
The main point being, there are no contradictory or illogical statements made in Genesis 4 (or the rest of the Bible for that matter).

   346. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 27, 2012 at 03:07 PM (#4167866)
but Corporations are made up of people!!!


Can we then eat them?
   347. SandyRiver Posted: June 27, 2012 at 03:11 PM (#4167872)
Probably the "Where did Cain get his wife" queries are offered in the same way as "When did you stop beating your wife?", to ensure that no answer given would be acceptible. Since the Bible is silent on the Cain's wife subject, ANY answer would need to be "made up". But who else would it be, while being consistent with what the Bible does say? Cain's niece?

And as with a number of books of the Bible, Genesis isn't always chronological. One example: Most of Ch 2, that portion after the sabbath discussion, is additional details concerning day 6 of the creation account. That's the logical interpretation whether one thinks the Bible to be God's inerrant word or whether one considers it to be semitic tribal legends.
   348. RobertMachemer Posted: June 27, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4167902)
The main point being, there are no contradictory or illogical statements made in Genesis 4 (or the rest of the Bible for that matter).
None in the whole Bible? Really?
   349. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: June 27, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4167917)
The inference is that the genetic issues related to inbreeding did not become significant until many years had passed since the forbidden fruit was eaten.


We evolved!
   350. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 27, 2012 at 03:40 PM (#4167921)
The idea that any post which mentions the current President must devolve into a rancorous discussion is laughable just like the mention of breasts doesn't give people permission to go Beavis and Butthead and just like wearing a short dress doesn't open a woman up to crude comments.

As I said before, "Holy terrible analogy Batman!"


Yes, bad analogy. The proper analogy would be: a woman wearing a short dress goes up to the man and says "Let's have sex," and then halfway through the sex she suddenly calls foul and then later she suggests to everyone in the community that maybe the man is a bad person because she didn't really give the man consent to have sex with her.
   351. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 27, 2012 at 03:43 PM (#4167929)
Probably the "Where did Cain get his wife" queries are offered in the same way as "When did you stop beating your wife?", to ensure that no answer given would be acceptible.


No, "When did you stop beating your wife?" is a classic question assuming a fact not in evidence- and there is a perfectly respectable response, anything along the lines of "I've never beaten my wife"

or "Have you stopped beating your wife?" can be seen as a trick question- if you answer "no" [because you never started so how can you stop?] the assumption is that you currently beat your wife, if you answer "yes" then you are implicitly admitting having beaten your wife in the past

"Where did Cain get his wife" queries OTOH are legitimate questions that have long history, if you as a "literalist" are going to assert that the Bible is the word of God, and it is literally true, and these stories are true, not just allegories* then you #$%@ well better be able to answer these types of questions


*I was raised Roman Catholic, and while I have quite few shall we say disagreements with the RC Church, one thing I am in absolute agreement with the Church is Protestants, particularly literalist/fundamentalist types have a really wrongheaded and butchered interpretation of the Bible - at every level
   352. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 27, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4167935)
We evolved!


devolved, you see people like Methusaleh lived longer back then because "our" current shortened lifespans are the result of the mass inbreeding among the first few generations...



   353. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: June 27, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4167940)
"When did you stop beating your wife?" is a classic question assuming a fact not in evidence


This. While the literalist interpretation does have an answer (sister, or mother, #######) it's still an answer that needs to be given if you're advancing your interpretation. The correct answer to the wifebeating question is a fist to the face.

I'm personally of the opinion that if there is a Judeo-Christian God, He's truly ineffable, and hence not bound by logic. Take that, problem of evil and paradox of the stone! Things get easier when you can just say masha'allah to everything.

352: Still, evolution. Darwin wins!
   354. Biscuit_pants Posted: June 27, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4167947)
"Where did Cain get his wife"
when did mail order brides come into existence?
   355. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 27, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4167948)
Yes, bad analogy. The proper analogy would be: a woman wearing a short dress goes up to the man and says "Let's have sex," and then halfway through the sex she suddenly calls foul and then later she suggests to everyone in the community that maybe the man is a bad person because she didn't really give the man consent to have sex with her.


We call this the Julian Assange case.
   356. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 27, 2012 at 03:55 PM (#4167952)
when did mail order brides come into existence?


Winner. Cain's wife was Ukrainian. Clearly.
   357. Guapo Posted: June 27, 2012 at 04:18 PM (#4167979)
"Where did Cain get his wife"


Apparently he met her while she was waitressing at a steakhouse.

The Bible just gets weirder and weirder all the time, man.
   358. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: June 27, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4167981)
Real-life action figure Chuck Norris is blasting President Obama for allegedly working behind the scenes to create a "pro-gay Boy Scouts of America."

Norris -- an action star and well-known conservative and gun-rights activist -- made the charges in a piece posted Tuesday on Ammoland.com, a site dedicated to shooting-sports news.

Norris suggests that Americans take a closer look at the recent headlines made when James Turley, a Boy Scouts of America national board member, announced that he will work from within the scouting organization to change its long-standing position barring gay Scouts and gay Scout leaders. Turley is also chairman and chief executive of Ernst & Young.

"Is Turley working on his own initiative, or has the White House prodded him with perks and favors?" Norris asks in the article, which also suggests that Obama has tossed several political plums Turley's way so that he will carry out what he describes as the White House's pro-gay agenda. "Is it a coincidence that Turley is in tight cahoots with the White House and that he is the only BSA national board member in 100 years to oppose its pro-traditional family stance?"

The article also seems to criticize Obama for what Norris sees as the administration's favoritism of illegal immigrants, homosexuals, atheists and agnostics over Christians and U.S. taxpayers.


You watch your ass, Victoria Jackson, the Chuckster is gunning for your place in the pantheon of washed-up wingnuts ...
   359. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 27, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4167986)
The best Bible story that gets no play, ever, occurs during the resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 26-28):

51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. 52 The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

No mention of Rick or Laurie.
   360. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: June 27, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4167993)
And it explains why Clarence Thomas is my favorite Supreme Court justice by a wide margin: because whether you like his POV or not, he has a very consistent view of what Constitution does and does not allow and he follows it relentlessly, even when it takes him to places where he personally does not want to go


Meh, Thomas is certainly more consistent than, say, Scalia, but he's not any moreso than Ginsberg. Breyer isn't significantly inconsistent. The thing that makes Thomas notable is that it's clear how he's going to vote before the oral argument because his consistency is far more predictable than the other relatively consistent justices. Also, there aren't that many cases where Thomas signs on to a decision that goes against where he wants to go, and certainly not any major cases. Raich doesn't count, considering it would have overturned Wickard v. Filburn.
   361. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 27, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4168012)
"Is Turley working on his own initiative, or has the White House prodded him with perks and favors?" Norris asks in the article, which also suggests that Obama has tossed several political plums Turley's way so that he will carry out what he describes as the White House's pro-gay agenda. "Is it a coincidence that Turley is in tight cahoots with the White House and that he is the only BSA national board member in 100 years to oppose its pro-traditional family stance?"


Oh Chuckles. No one working on the gay agenda has a tight cahoot any longer.
   362. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 27, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4168017)
Meh, Thomas is certainly more consistent than, say, Scalia, but he's not any moreso than Ginsberg. Breyer isn't significantly inconsistent. The thing that makes Thomas notable is that it's clear how he's going to vote before the oral argument because his consistency is far more predictable than the other relatively consistent justices.


You forgot to allow the people who claim the only "consistent judicial theory" is "strict constructionism" to beg their question. No soup for you.
   363. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: June 27, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4168026)
strict constructionism


I always crack up at that concept considering how much disagreement there was about what everything meant back when the Constitution was actually written. Ahistorical constructions claiming historical validity are always fun.
   364. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 27, 2012 at 05:12 PM (#4168031)
Ahistorical constructions claiming historical validity are always fun.


Textual inerrantists are a funny lot.
   365. Monty Posted: June 27, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4168053)
Man, have any of you ever actually seen a "constitution"? How do you even know it really exists?

Wait, that's not going to be effective trolling at all. Never mind.
   366. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: June 27, 2012 at 05:34 PM (#4168063)
My constitution is probably a 9 or 10, judging from my general level of health and fitness.
   367. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: June 27, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4168069)
My constitution is probably a 9 or 10, judging from my general level of health and fitness.

On what scale?
   368. Monty Posted: June 27, 2012 at 05:43 PM (#4168077)
On what scale?


3d6, probably.
   369. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: June 27, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4168089)
3d6, probably.


Yeah. Certainly not 1-10. But being generally in good health with no medical issues to speak of, rarely sick, while working a job that leads to a sedentary lifestyle and not eating great probably equals out to an average or slightly below average Con score. Of course, that's ignoring potential age group modifiers, I've got a better Con than the average person twice my age. What, not everyone has figured out what their RL stats are? I'm a whole mess of average, for the most part. 10, 8, 10, 12, 15, 9, or thereabouts.

eta: That's right, this is a D&D threadjack attempt. WOO, SAVE VS. NERD RESISTANCE! The 15 could probably be as high as 18 or as low as 12 depending on how much you count or discount standardized tests and cultural bias in determining intellect.
   370. Monty Posted: June 27, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4168103)
I'm a whole mess of average, for the most part. 10, 8, 10, 12, 15, 9, or thereabouts.


Ah, you're going in the current stat order. I learned "Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma" (or "SIWDCCh") as a child and never successfully trained myself to make the switch.
   371. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 27, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4168110)
18, 18, 18, 16, 18, 20
   372. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: June 27, 2012 at 06:46 PM (#4168122)
18, 18, 18, 16, 18, 20


Wow, are you sure you should be slumming here? Throw in a 12 inch penis and you could qualify as an average poster at MMA.com
   373. zenbitz Posted: June 27, 2012 at 06:50 PM (#4168126)
In GURPS (and probably other games) you can reverse engineer your "constitution" (Health or HT in GURPS) by measuring the amount of time you can hold your breath.

2 minutes = 14 (pretty much a 3-18 scale). For INT or IQ if on a 3-18 scale you can usually use your measured IQ/10 (get a roughly correct bell curve).


It is not recommended you reverse engineer your health/con stat by finding out how many hit points you have.
   374. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: June 27, 2012 at 07:01 PM (#4168130)
Ah, you're going in the current stat order.


I learned it as Str Dex Con Wis Int Cha back when it was still 2nd Ed.

For INT or IQ if on a 3-18 scale you can usually use your measured IQ/10 (get a roughly correct bell curve).


I was doing it off the probability of rolling 3-18 or above. I definitely do not have a 150 IQ, as evinced by the current soccer thread example of me and mathfail.
   375. Jim Furtado Posted: June 27, 2012 at 09:35 PM (#4168181)
I just went through a little of this thread. Ugh. From experience I won't be going around and around and around with some of usual suspects.

I did find the following very amusing:
Look at the number of responses already: over 200 in like eight hours. There's your answer.

It couldn't be more obvious that all the stuff about the redesign of the site is a total bunch of B.S.
Yes, the whole beta area is a figment of imagination. You got me.
   376. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 27, 2012 at 09:42 PM (#4168188)
You forgot to allow the people who claim the only "consistent judicial theory" is "strict constructionism" to beg their question. No soup for you.
To be fair, "Making it up as you go along" is sort of a consistent judicial theory.
   377. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: June 27, 2012 at 10:06 PM (#4168198)
Seeing as how the Constitution contains no provision for the Supreme Court to do things like, say, interpret whether or not laws made by Congress are Constitutional, "strict constuctionism" has always been a self-cancelling excuse to advance a conservative agenda and nothing more.
   378. Morty Causa Posted: June 27, 2012 at 10:57 PM (#4168224)
Making it up as you go along is what everyone does. Some people like to pretend otherwise, though. Oscar Wilde: "we're all lying in the gutter, only some of us are looking at the stars."
   379. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 27, 2012 at 11:46 PM (#4168242)
"strict constuctionism" has always been a self-cancelling excuse to advance a conservative agenda and nothing more.

As is the even more frequently evoked catchphrase of right wing comfort food, "states' rights", a noble concept which seems to be quickly dismissed by the Scalias of the world as soon as a state decides it wants to reign in corporations rather than Mexicans.
   380. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 27, 2012 at 11:52 PM (#4168246)
As is the even more frequently evoked catchphrase of right wing comfort food, "states' rights",


Could a Neshoba County Fair argument be far behind?
   381. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 28, 2012 at 12:15 AM (#4168256)
Re: #375--
The poster in question apparently comes to this site to be pissed off about its choice of topics and the people on it. His political views tend towards "ask not what your country can do for you, ask why you're such a commie libtard." His primary interest in baseball seems to be aggravation-based. If he were a paramecium, he'd be against osmosis.
   382. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: June 28, 2012 at 12:16 AM (#4168257)
I just went through a little of this thread.


I dunno, Jim. You just pulled up baseless personal shot at you from 100 posts before to dismiss it sarcastically. You're a natural at this!

Seeing as how the Constitution contains no provision for the Supreme Court to do things like, say, interpret whether or not laws made by Congress are Constitutional


The common law system has at least some precedent, in the literal sense, for judges interpreting the law and building law based upon past judicial systems. Marshall wasn't building on a house of sand. Maybe a foundation of sandstone, but it wasn't totally new.

eta: Kinda sad that my D&D hijack died :(
   383. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 28, 2012 at 12:26 AM (#4168259)
As is the even more frequently evoked catchphrase of right wing comfort food, "states' rights",

Could a Neshoba County Fair argument be far behind?


Might be, except that the candidate who most famously invoked that slithery catchphrase at that particular venue has long since gone to his reward.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Re: #375--
The poster in question apparently comes to this site to be pissed off about its choice of topics and the people on it. His political views tend towards "ask not what your country can do for you, ask why you're such a commie libtard." His primary interest in baseball seems to be aggravation-based. If he were a paramecium, he'd be against osmosis.


That's almost "Don't immanentize the eschaton"-worthy. And it's also completely accurate.
   384. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 28, 2012 at 08:35 AM (#4168329)
Seeing as how the Constitution contains no provision for the Supreme Court to do things like, say, interpret whether or not laws made by Congress are Constitutional, "strict constuctionism" has always been a self-cancelling excuse to advance a conservative agenda and nothing more.
The Constitution does, in fact, contain a provision for the Supreme Court to do things like, say, interpret whether or not laws made by Congress are Constitutional: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." That's what the "judicial power" is.

Also, I let this pass in my first response, but who's talking about "strict constructionism" in the first place? Scalia says, for instance,
I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be -- though better that, I suppose, than a nontextualist. A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means.
Scalia calls himself a textualist, but I suspect that most non-legal-theorist conservatives who use the term "strict constructionism" mean pretty much the same thing, and don't mean "overly literalist." And then of course there's originalism.
   385. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 28, 2012 at 08:53 AM (#4168337)
The Constitution does, in fact, contain a provision for the Supreme Court to do things like, say, interpret whether or not laws made by Congress are Constitutional: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." That's what the "judicial power" is


See Davey, you're a natural at this "reading the words to mean what you want them to mean." Just keep making it up as you go, tyke.
   386. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: June 28, 2012 at 08:54 AM (#4168339)
Wow, are you sure you should be slumming here?


Even the gods toyed about on the beaches of Troy. It's amusing sometimes.
   387. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: June 28, 2012 at 09:24 AM (#4168349)
The Constitution does, in fact, contain a provision for the Supreme Court to do things like, say, interpret whether or not laws made by Congress are Constitutional: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." That's what the "judicial power" is

That is utterly ridiculous.
   388. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: June 28, 2012 at 09:30 AM (#4168352)
Even the gods toyed about on the beaches of Troy. It's amusing sometimes


Quick, where's Diomedes?
   389. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: June 28, 2012 at 10:09 AM (#4168377)
And the healthcare decision is ...

   390. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: June 28, 2012 at 10:11 AM (#4168380)
From SCOTUSblog:

10:08 Amy Howe: The individual mandate survives as a tax.

10:09 Amy Howe: It's very complicated, so we're still figuring it out.

10:10 Tom: So the mandate is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court.

10:11 Amy Howe: The Medicaid provision is limited but not invalidated.

10:13 Tom: The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read.
   391. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 28, 2012 at 10:12 AM (#4168383)
Here is what the Constitution says about the SCOTUS:

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
...
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To ...
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;


Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
...
He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States...



and then there is the Supremacy clause:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.



It has been pointed out by more than a few people that Congress theoretically has the power to divet the SCOTUS of teh ability to pass on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress:
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
   392. tshipman Posted: June 28, 2012 at 10:15 AM (#4168388)
It has been pointed out by more than a few people that Congress theoretically has the power to divet the SCOTUS of teh ability to pass on the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress:
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


Someone tell John Boehner so he can get started on that!

Edit: After a good cry, of course.
   393. Craig in MN Posted: June 28, 2012 at 10:15 AM (#4168390)
From SCOTUSblog:


CNN's headline says the mandate was killed...it's been up for 5 minutes. Everyone else says it stays. Big oops for someone.
   394. formerly dp Posted: June 28, 2012 at 10:19 AM (#4168396)
CNN's headline says the mandate was killed...it's been up for 5 minutes. Everyone else says it stays. Big oops for someone.

For once, CNN is thankful no one pays attention to them...
   395. tshipman Posted: June 28, 2012 at 10:20 AM (#4168397)
CNN's headline says the mandate was killed...it's been up for 5 minutes. Everyone else says it stays. Big oops for someone.


Isn't that technically accurate?

IOW, Roberts split the baby. He killed the mandate, but kept the penalty. IOW, congress can't tell people that they MUST buy insurance, but they can levy a fine for not buying insurance.

Sort of a stupid fig leaf for Roberts, but hey, it's cool by me.
   396. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: June 28, 2012 at 10:22 AM (#4168399)
10:15 Tom: Chief Justice Roberts' vote saved the ACA.

10:18 Amy Howe: The money quote from the section on the mandate: Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in Section 5000A under the taxing power, and that Section 5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. This is sufficient to sustain it.


10:20 Amy Howe: The court reinforces that individuals can simply refuse to pay the tax and not comply with the mandate.
   397. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 28, 2012 at 10:22 AM (#4168400)
UPDATE: Goldstein reports: “So the mandate is constitutional. Chief Justice Roberts joins the left of the Court.” “The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government’s power to terminate states’ Medicaid funds is narrowly read.” “Chief Justice Roberts’ vote saved the ACA


So early reports are that the unconstitutional mandate has been ruled constitutional.

But let's wait until people (not me until tonight) have a chance to read the whole decision.
   398. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: June 28, 2012 at 10:25 AM (#4168403)
10:21 Amy Howe: On the Medicaid issue, a majority of the Court holds that the Medicaid expansion is constitutional but that it w/b unconstitutional for the federal government to withhold Medicaid funds for non-compliance with the expansion provisions.

10:22 Lyle: The key comment on salvaging the Medicaid expansion is this (from Roberts): "Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering funds under the ACA to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that states accepting such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding." (p. 55)
   399. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: June 28, 2012 at 10:27 AM (#4168405)
10:24 Tom: Apologies - you can't refuse to pay the tax; typo. The only effect of not complying with the mandate is that you pay the tax.

10:25 Amy Howe: The Court holds that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but that doesn't matter b/c there are five votes for the mandate to be constitutional under the taxing power.
   400. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 28, 2012 at 10:27 AM (#4168406)
There's a chance to have a pretty healthy and informed discussion about the ruling here, so let's hope Jim allows that to happen and doesn't nuke the thread.
Page 4 of 14 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
TedBerg
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(81 - 2:03am, Oct 25)
Last: Dan

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(16 - 1:35am, Oct 25)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(12 - 1:31am, Oct 25)
Last: Into the Void

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(916 - 1:29am, Oct 25)
Last: J. Sosa

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(515 - 1:26am, Oct 25)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(385 - 1:05am, Oct 25)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogCurt Schilling not hiding his scars - ESPN Boston
(21 - 12:44am, Oct 25)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3736 - 12:23am, Oct 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogHow top World Series players ranked as prospects. | SportsonEarth.com : Jim Callis Article
(21 - 12:04am, Oct 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(14 - 11:59pm, Oct 24)
Last: Zach

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(73 - 11:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBeaneball | Gold Gloves and Coco Crisp's Terrible 2014 Defense
(2 - 7:47pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(871 - 7:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Jim Wisinski

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(67 - 6:38pm, Oct 24)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogThe ‘Little Things’ – The Hardball Times
(2 - 6:34pm, Oct 24)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

Page rendered in 1.0481 seconds
52 querie(s) executed