I’m piling on to the multiple posts about the Romney/Bain shenanigans with a link to my own. Schadenfreude like this should be savored for as long as possible.
Mitt Romney Lied About Bain Capital: A PrimerPost + Comments (141)
A metaphor or two in the pages of a blue boy magazine
I can’t help myself. I had to go and see, and apparently they’re having a circle jerk of misery over at the Corner.
I have found that tears make such ineffective lubricant. Too chafing.
However, they all appear to agree that the wingnut pundits from the non-Corner parts of National Review Online, who are claiming that Roberts’ decision was in fact a good thing for Republicans because tax Trojan horse mumblecakes, are talking out their collective arses, which is never a good thing in a circle jerk situation.
I admit that I giggled a bit when I read Daniel Foster’s comment that:
On the substance, I’m with VDH, Ramesh, Rich, et al.
because, frankly, that sounds like a situation in you should see your doctor before pus starts coming out, but I thought Michael Walsh’s post was rather good, if one ignored the wah wah defeat to liberty beginning, the “liberals are po-mo fraidycats” bit and the trite baseball metaphor.
Re: yesterday’s Supreme calamity, put me down in the Victor, Andy, and Jonah camp. There’s no way to rouge this porker of a decision from the chief justice as anything other than a stinging defeat for the forces of personal liberty. When you have to tell your troops that they “really” won, even as they flee the battlefield, you’re out of your mind.
As Professor Hanson notes, “rationalizing defeats is no way to learn from them.” Besides, counter-factual rationalization is the Left’s game; post-modern to a fault, they exist in an imaginary universe of dark shadows and dog whistles. So what if Roberts drop-kicked the Commerce Clause? The same end was accomplished by grabbing the taxing power instead, then helpfully rewriting the law and the administration’s own testimony to “correct” what Congress meant to say.
True, Romney had a big fund-raising day yesterday, but so what? I don’t buy the notion that Obamacare will now be the issue heading into the election; for the vast majority of Americans, that got settled yesterday, and it will be child’s play for the Left to paint conservatives as whiny sore losers and crude revanchists. Romney will again be forced to explain exactly why Romneycare was right for Massachusetts but Obamacare is wrong for America — and appeals to the Tenth Amendment just aren’t going to cut it.
We’ll probably never know why Roberts — with the country begging for clarity and resolution — walked right up to the line and then backed away. For conservatives, yesterday’s defeat is like the Red Sox in Game 6 of the 1986 World Series: one strike away . . . and then the ball rolls through Buckner’s legs.
Rouge this porker. Hee.
A metaphor or two in the pages of a blue boy magazinePost + Comments (98)
Bitter Wingnut Obamacare Tears: GOP Rep. Jean Schmidt Edition
Upon hearing that the individual mandate was struck down (it wasn’t) Ohio Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Crazypants) screams with joy like someone had told her she just won the lottery. The video is delicious. I wish there was video of her reaction when she realized she was wrong, wrong, wrong. You’ll just have to use your imagination.
Bitter Wingnut Obamacare Tears: GOP Rep. Jean Schmidt EditionPost + Comments (79)
Even Romney Agrees: THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS NOT A TAX.
Well, well, well, what have we here? Oh, it’s a video of a 2006 press conference after the passage of Romneycare in which Romney states the mandate in Romneycare — the stepfather of Obamacare — is not a tax, but rather a fee or an assessment on those who are “abusing the free care pool.”
Mmm-hmm.
Even Romney Agrees: THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS NOT A TAX.Post + Comments (20)
The George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina Kerfuffle: For Teh Google, Sandra Fluke, and Glory!
***I know Cole covered this already, but bear with me.
TBogg has a post up over at Firedoglake that is balls-to-the-wall hilarious. You see, George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina doesn’t quite understand how teh Google works, and has threatened to sue TBogg over a post that Teh Boggs wrote about how George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina is a colossal douchebag.
In short, George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina likes to tweet about how Sandra Fluke is a slut and a c#nt and all of the stuff that assholes like George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina routinely call women like Fluke who dare speak out for themselves.
While reading TBogg’s post about George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina, I read the following comment, the subject of which is George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina, and which was written by internet sage and purveyor of hilarity, Betty Cracker (of Rumproast and Balloon Juice):
Boy, that George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina sure doesn’t understand how the Google works, does George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina? I hear there are online rep management organizations that could help George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina if George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina were willing to pay them thousands and thousands of dollars.
But I’m not even sure that would help George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina since the name, “George Tierney,” and the location, “Greenville, South Carolina,” appear on high traffic blogs and popular Twitter streams. And people keep saying “George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina.”
I think George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina is shit out of luck. Unless he wants to change his name to something other than “George Tierney” and perhaps move away from Greenville, South Carolina. Maybe George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina shouldn’t have been such a giant dick. Lesson learned, George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina?
I think Betty is spot on about this George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina business. As such, I have decided to blog in solidarity with TBogg against the baseless litigious threats of George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina and to laugh in George Tierney of Greenville, South Carolina’s general direction:
Americans (Fail to) Select…
… cruel RBC (Reality-Based Community) members point and laugh:
Americans Elect, the group that has spent the last two years securing ballot access for a yet-to-be-named middle ground presidential candidate, wound up running into a significant problem: Finding a candidate.
The group announced late Monday that no candidate has attained the level of support he or she would need to even be considered at the group’s online convention next month, and the deadline for candidates to qualify has passed. That leaves the group with ballot access in more than half the states — including many swing states — but no candidate to actually put on the ballot.
The group says it will meet Thursday to decide whether to press on.
The excellent Jim Cook’s stalwart reporting at the Irregular Times has been my go-to source for news of AE’s latest stupidity, as when he sticks a pin in the AE founders overinflated egos fact checks Kahlil Byrd’s May 15 statement:
… Americans Elect has not yet “gained nationwide ballot access.” The latest news release by Americans Elect on the subject, just a few days ago, declares that Americans Elect has ballot access in 27 states (source). Ballot access was gained through paid signature gatherers (source), not a grassroots wave of supporters…
Americans Elect also has not “fielded a credible, balanced, unaffiliated ticket for the 2012 presidential race.” That is why Kahlil Byrd released this statement. Three Americans Elect ballots have gone empty because no candidate has reached the required 1,000 votes of support in each 10 states for political insiders and 5,000 votes of support in each of 10 states for political outsiders (source | source). The closest any candidate came to reaching either of those standards was Ron Paul, who as of 5:00 this morning had obtained 48.9% of the required votes after months as a draft candidate (source)…
Kahlil Byrd declares that there are “millions of Americans who have supported AE” who want to “see a credible candidate emerge from this process.” If this were true, then there would be millions of Americans who acted to see a credible candidate emerge from the process by casting votes to put candidates on the Americans Elect ballot. There have not been millions of Americans casting vote in the Americans Elect process. The top ten declared candidates, put together, have only received 14,399 votes expressing support for their placement on an Americans Elect ballot (source) — and as Americans Elect points out in a recent e-mail, a single person can cast “as many [votes] as you like now” (source)…
[F]our days ago Roger Ryan made a motion and put advertisements up around the Internet asking people to second his motion to shelve the current official Americans Elect rules and let candidates on the Americans Elect ballot anyway. Fewer than 25 people have seconded Roger Ryan’s motion (source). If there really are “400,000 delegates” as Americans Elect dubiously claims, that’s an awfully low level of support — about the opposite of “universal.”
Professor Krugman, as is his wont, points out the obvious-to-those-not-getting-paid-to-be-obtuse:
Thing Falls Apart
…What went wrong? Well, there actually is a large constituency in America for a political leader who is willing to take responsible positions — to call for more investment in the nation’s education and infrastructure, to propose bringing down the long-run deficit through a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. And there is in fact a political leader ready and willing (maybe too willing) to play that role; his name is Barack Obama…
Don’t Let the Door Hit You Where the Good Lord Split You
I hope all of you are following the douche trail of tax evader Eduardo Saverin and enjoying it as much as me. As you may recall, this fuckstick decided to renounce his US citizenship and move to Singapore–land of the free, home of the cane–about the same time as the Facebook IPO so he would save $67 million in taxes. Now his attorney is telling the world that only a delusional idiot would think that the reason he renounced his citizenship was because of taxes. Why? Let’s look at point #10 on the State Department form that Ed had to sign to relinquish his citizenship [pdf]:
I understand that if my renunciation of United States citizenship is determined by the United States Attorney General to be motivated by tax avoidance purposes, I will be found excludable from the United States […]
In other words, unless Ed gets a little special treatment, he can’t ever set foot in the United States.
Here’s my guess at how this went down. Ed’s attorney, sensing the possibility that he will be able to stuff a good portion of that $67 million into his own wallet, told Ed that a little legal maneuvering was all that’s necessary to guarantee that Ed can land his private jet on US soil. I’m sure the attorney figured that a year of backroom dealing and careful legal maneuvering would get Ed’s travel rights back. Unfortunately, Ed’s attorney didn’t factor in the douche factor:
“This had nothing to do with taxes,” [Ed] insisted. “I was born in Brazil, I was an American citizen for about 10 years. I thought of myself as a global citizen.”
This motherfucker is so big and bad that his passport says “World” on it. Proles like you just wouldn’t understand. Ed’s 30 years old. He’s got at least 70 more years to be very careful where he spits his gum.
Don’t Let the Door Hit You Where the Good Lord Split YouPost + Comments (194)