PJ Media

@348. Lefty: – The comic is blatantly racist, …

LOL!!!!!! That’s the first time I’ve seen this particular stretch, although I’m sure I’ve missed plenty of them. Of course, I’ve seen actual, you know, blatant racism, and it’s rarely, if ever open to interpretation.

But so… what you’re saying, in so many words, is that ANY inflammatory caricature of BHO that actually depicts him, in the flesh, doing something awful… is automatically racist??!! Because HE happens to be half-black??!! And because YOU want to interpret it that way simply out of guilt (i.e., see Dave Surls’ perceptive comment above)??

Man, I wish I had that kind of Get Out Of Jail Free card! But I’m just an old white guy.

Again – Stuck on Stupid. Unless you can tell me what I’m thinking right now (which would imply that you knew what Darlene was thinking when she created the cartoon). I’ll give you a hint: it’s not kind.

.

@349. Brian N: – … I will claim that the authority to mandate health care can be found in the constitution.

Okay Brian, you get points for effort – you actually went looking for something to support your position. You should apply for the soon-to-be-vacant job of Speaker of the House, since she’s never bothered even to do that.

But the question is: does this cherry-picked passage actually support your position? Really? Based on what? You copied and pasted a quote, yes. But you provided no rationale whatsoever explaining how the power “To lay and Collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” has suddenly, magically morphed into the power “to selectively mandate a private sector purchase”. That new authority, I’m afraid, would required a Constitutional Amendment, not just a simple Act of Congress (much less an Act passed using bribery, fraud and procedural violations).

Hamilton, is not on “your side” of the argument simply because you copied and pasted something he wrote which sounds to you like what you want to believe. Here’s another section of that same missive, which you conveniently neglected to include [my emph.]:

“The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this–That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.”

Here, your ex-buddy Hamilton undercuts your position in two ways.

First and most simply, a mandate for a private sector purchase is NOT an “appropriation of money”, which is the specific authority he’s referring to here. Rather, a mandate for a private sector purchase is enforced commerce – the money isn’t being appropriated by the government, it’s being paid to a private firm. The general Welfare phrase is buried in a clause which discusses Congress’ power to appropriate funds, not to place private sector mandates upon some citizens. That’s fail #1.

Second, Hamilton is clearly speaking regionally (i.e., “General and not local”). This rationale is easily applied to support demographic inclusivity as well. That is, “throughout the Union” clearly means ALL of the People, equally, not just the social group, class or demographic of citizens any particular Congress or administration wants to penalize (or, conversely, buy votes from). That’s fail #2.

Good work. Try harder.

.

@350. G.L. Alston: – Are you referring to the article that says liberals are disrespectful and lack civility because they say things like those who disagree are blind idiots?
No. Idiocy means doing “something notably stupid or foolish” – in this case, intentionally. Blind – as in, say, blind rage – can mean “oblivious to the consequences”. As such – and this may be a distinction too subtle for you – blind idiocy does not require an actual living, breathing blind idiot. Your own excursion into circular idiocy, above, is proof enough of that, Alston.