I know it's jobs - is it national (presumably) or a state, private or public sector or both? Etc.

oh oh oh... its a bar graph

VoxOrion wrote:I know it's jobs - is it national (presumably) or a state, private or public sector or both? Etc.

I would imagine it's national, non farm employment

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2iiirr5KI8[/youtube]

It's really the mustache that makes this I think

there's nothing that's 'against' the constitution in this bill. if it is, then EVERY GOD DAMN THING IS AGAINST IT THAT WE'VE EVER ENACTED. this is so dumb

and anyway, the constitution is old. we are not. to a certain extent, screw it

jerseyhoya wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:I know it's jobs - is it national (presumably) or a state, private or public sector or both? Etc.

I would imagine it's national, non farm employment

yeah

While I think Pacino is a little out there that's definitely true to an extent. Off the top of my head if the hcr bill is unconstitutional so is Medicare, social security, and unemployment.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:While I think Pacino is a little out there that's definitely true to an extent. Off the top of my head if the hcr bill is unconstitutional so is Medicare, social security, and unemployment.

A guy like Ron Paul would have you believe they all are, until you realize he actually is on Medicare (which you have every right to refuse, and can also choose not to accept RSDI or SSI) and brings home the bacon for all of his constituents.

It's probably constitutional-ish, and I don't think the courts will or should overturn it because I think legislatures should be allowed to make laws. That said it's really a different sort of thing, since it requires citizens to buy health insurance from a private entity merely for being a citizen. But we all know the Nightman Cometh is a constitutional law scholar so debating the point with him is fruitless.

That said when a congressman looks like a tit like that it's funny. "Doesn't matter to me...either one." Hah

VoxOrion wrote:What does that graph represent? Where's it from?

Not a challenge - I just can't tell.

According to a right-click/properties on the image, it's from Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog!, linked from Washington Monthly. Red = Bush administration, blue = Obama administration.

About 60,000 of the March numbers are census workers. How many of those 60k census people will be shot as "trespassers" in the southern red states, I dunno.

judging by his voting record, i love the above guy

His wiki is updated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Hare# ... nstitution

Phil Hare is not alone in not caring what the Constitution says. It's just very disappointing that people can proudly and willfully ignore their sworn duties.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

don't play that game, the men talking to him were not interested in having an honest conversation, they were grandstanding for the camera (which they ironically brought). it's tough to respond and he simply could not frame what he wanted to say because whatever he said was simply going to be ignore by them.

jerseyhoya wrote:It's probably constitutional-ish, and I don't think the courts will or should overturn it because I think legislatures should be allowed to make laws. That said it's really a different sort of thing, since it requires citizens to buy health insurance from a private entity merely for being a citizen. But we all know the Nightman Cometh is a constitutional law scholar so debating the point with him is fruitless.
That said when a congressman looks like a tit like that it's funny. "Doesn't matter to me...either one." Hah

What's the deal? Why the need to be such a dick so randomly? It's not even as if we had a conversation along these lines before or even about the constitution in general.

I generally think along the lines of Schaller at fivethirtyeight.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/constitutionality-of-mandatory.html

I look forward to your dickish response.

Three things:

1) Hare wasn't interested in having an honest conversation either. He did not read the health care bill three times. I mean really, why would you even say that?

2) I loved how the guys with the camera knew they had a gem as soon as he said he didn't worry about the constitution on it...Jackpot

3) I enjoyed that the guy called him out immediately on confusing the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence

honestly though, i have a history degree and was all over the constitution and declaration when i was in school, but have certainly let particulars slip from my mind of late.

that's why we shouldn't have term limits though, we need professional lawmakers who know the ins and outs of the law

pacino wrote:don't play that game, the men talking to him were not interested in having an honest conversation, they were grandstanding for the camera (which they ironically brought). it's tough to respond and he simply could not frame what he wanted to say because whatever he said was simply going to be ignore by them.

I take the Constitution very seriously.

whenever i see the sunglasses smiley i try to read the previous sentence as though david caruso had typed it

pacino wrote:whenever i see the sunglasses smiley i try to read the previous sentence as though david caruso had typed it

I take the Constitution... very seriously.

YEAAAH!!

The Nightman Cometh wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It's probably constitutional-ish, and I don't think the courts will or should overturn it because I think legislatures should be allowed to make laws. That said it's really a different sort of thing, since it requires citizens to buy health insurance from a private entity merely for being a citizen. But we all know the Nightman Cometh is a constitutional law scholar so debating the point with him is fruitless.
That said when a congressman looks like a tit like that it's funny. "Doesn't matter to me...either one." Hah

What's the deal? Why the need to be such a dick so randomly? It's not even as if we had a conversation along these lines before or even about the constitution in general.

I generally think along the lines of Schaller at fivethirtyeight.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/constitutionality-of-mandatory.html

I look forward to your dickish response.

The comparisons to Medicare and Social Security aren't valid. The government is mandating me, John Q. Citizen, to buy health insurance from a private company. If I do not, the government will penalize me by taking more of my money. This is unprecedented, which is not the same thing as unconstitutional. I said the bill will be upheld as constitutional, but your examples of other things that are equally "unconstitutional" as this bill aren't good ones.

Schaller is an idiot, an embarrassment to FiveThirtyEight, and if you read even the first few comments you get better arguments on both sides of the issue.