• I get that point, I do-but look at the framing in this piece and then consider the comment at #16. It doesn’t help to advance criticism of a nakedly political, corrupt judiciary when that criticism is clearly nakedly political itself. This isn’t some tortured reading at all. Only someone who is invested in the ACA and staked their public reputation to its architects being reasonably well-intended would claim that.

    There are some non-crazy reasons to disagree with this decisions, and many reasons to dislike it, but no grounds to call it an “absurd conclusion.” It’s more like a “foreseeable consequence” of this corrupt bill and process that birthed it.

  • Oh, well sorry then. Misread you. We agree. Sadly.

  • To channel (I think) mary m: many people had affordable health insurance before the ACA. That’s not a reason to defend the system of for-profit healthcare in the country and support it being rewarded with a captive market.

  • Surprise, surprise: more cry-baby apologies for the ACA. Surely nothing about this law lands at the feet of the democrats, unless it’s (arguably) a good thing. Got it.

    Hey, maybe there would have been a way to reform healthcare in this country that wouldn’t have been susceptible to such things?

    Maybe the monstrous size and inexplicable complexity of the law has something to do with that:

    very contrived reading

    Maybe this is an example of a reason why nobody should strive for a mediocrity/half a loaf-because you may end up getting something worse?

    But BigIns won’t be hurt by this, right?

    And hey, why should Jon Walker worry about the concept of responsibility or foreseeable consequences? The Dems for whom he carry water don’t.

  • Really? You strike me as paranoid. You’re so worked up about this bullshit media creation “immigration crisis” that you can see sending the National Guard to the border at a cost of $12,000,000/month (I see your concern about resources has evaporated) as a reasonable idea? Even when implemented by a political tool as craven and callous as Rick Perry? You’ve gone off the rails, man.

    I’m not a liberal, Democrat or Republican-I’m a leftist, a socialist. But mainly here, I’m a human being with empathy. I find that leads me to oppose the Ds just as much as the Rs. I do try to be consistent.

  • the capability to produce nuclear power automatically gives a nation (or corporation) the capability to make explosive devices.

    Exactly. There’s no way to tell. So what you have is the powerful in the world going around and saying to anyone they don’t approve of: we don’t know why you’re doing this, it’s largely unknowable between the two possibilities and rational analysis could see reasons for either being true BUT since you are Country X, you can not do this-simply because we say so.

    Meanwhile, Israeli spies steal nuclear weapons tech from the U.S. and yet our “special relationship” marches on.

  • You got something to back that up? Other than cultural bias or total faith in John Kerry/Bibi Netanyahu?

    I’m on the record saying the ME would probably be a more stable place if Iran had the bomb so that doesn’t me worked up. Iran already has anti-ship missiles that could be put to very effective use against western and Israeli merchant vessels and warships. I don’t worry about Iran’s potentially irresponsible use of nukes based partly on their not having a track record of irresponsibly and cavalierly misusing dangerous weapons systems. Now Pakistan-our close ally, especially under military dictator Pervez Musharaf-a country that unstable, nuclear armed, yes that worries me. And countries like the U.S. and Israel, where the state is more and more under the thrall of war hawks, being nuclear armed-yeah, that worries me. Iran? Not so much-kinda like North Korea. Then again, we developed the bomb, so how is it our concern to police the world about it? If you set aside exceptionalism (which is just a nice term for cultural bias), there’s nothing there at all. The west has no moral high ground here, just superior force. That’ll only take you so far, for so long.

  • I’ll answer both of your, er, points.

    1.) The U.S. pursues multiple sources of power generation, as does Canada, Brazil, France, the UK, China, etc. Not irrelevant: Iran makes some cash selling power. What, are you against the market? Or plucky countries pulling themselves up by their bootstraps? Why is it a concern of yours, anyway?

    2.) I don’t like that any country has nuclear power plants. I also don’t like that anyone can ride a motorcycle down my block. But we’ve agreed that these things are country’s/people’s rights and its an absurd hypocrisy to allow some countries/people to pursue these activities and to disallow others based on nothing more than politics.

  • And how can we tell they’re having bad thoughts?

    The Ayatollah’s pelvic thrusting?

    Our ears burning?

    Ask Bibi?

    Yet I’ll still hear Israel-loving local “liberals” go on about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. It’s just like the ancient world. The Persians were the only peaceful and tolerant civilization in the region and look how they’re depicted. Ridiculous.

  • Oh, there are sad clowns.

    Perry is definitely one of them.

  • What’s his angle? You’re an idiot if you trust Schumer.

    Also: “deck chairs” and “the Titanic” come to mind.

    Someone above said:

    Splitting the party is the best thing that could happen to this country.

    That’s absolutely right.

  • So…come to any conclusions yet, Jon?

  • And also, wow: one more reason I’ve come across recently to limit my travel by air. Airlines routinely travel through war zones with active AA that has already shot down other aircraft? Again: wow! Let me guess why: to save money. What an incredibly, disturbingly fucking stupid thing to do. Shame on all those airlines. Their passengers never signed on to let the airline play with their lives.

  • Well caught. Also tried to catch dupes in the trap of agreeing that the coup regime in Kiev is some legitimate Ukrainian government. It’s a bit facile for the crowd here.

  • US officials acting on and endorsing the wishes of a foreign state-a theocracy no less!-against the wishes of their own state’s population is treason, obviously.

    USG no longer has any legitimacy.

    It’s really only a matter of time now.

  • but she has done absolutely nothing that would indicate she’s up for the job of president. She’s taken no principled positions. She’s accomplished nothing as Senator or as Secretary of State. She either never was in a position to take decisive action about anything or she always chose not too.
    And she’s a warmonger.

    So who wants her?

    I suspect you know that those things are exactly what those whose preferences matter want from their candidates. Relatively blank slates who can be depended upon to shill for, as someone said above, Wall St., AIPAC, the Pentagon and the security state.

  • Interesting. I wonder though-what do those same younger voters think of her being a strident hawk? Also, she won’t get any bump with that demographic from memories of the purported golden age of Willy’s terms.

    Otherwise, I can understand why a young person might look at the USG’s recent record of intervening in the economy and decide it might be better for them to just stay out of it-misguided as that is.

  • Very solid-right up there with things I see at ESPN. Looks like Hillary helps her team keep possession even though she starts most of her shifts in the defensive end and plays a lot against top opposition…

    Why not? Facile sports metaphors already occupy a large part of the lexicon of political analysis in ‘murka.

  • Anything can be described as “probable”; it’s subjective. And now you’ve added an “it’s possible” to the mights.

    You sure there isn’t an explanation that isn’t more probable?

    Hell, honestly, maybe you’re right. I doubt it. That doesn’t make any sense to me.

  • Fuck sake, people get paid to turn out this nonsense?

    Must be nice…after a fashion…

  • Load More