Monster Hunter Nation

Shut up and eat your poop cake.

Lots of people have been asking me to do a blog post about the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare. However, I’m still trying to wrap my brain around it. Reading through the news and opinion either John Roberts is a doofus who switched sides and sided with the liberal wing in order to suck up to the president and the media, or he is some sort of evil super genius who is playing chess while the left is playing checkers… I’d surely love for this all to be some sort of smack down of the out of control commerce clause, but it seems like the Robert’s apologists are starting to sound a lot like Prometheus apologists, which if you theory-craft a whole extra movie’s plot onto it, then it is great.

Last night over dinner, my wife and I were talking about Obamacare when my 10 year old daughter said “I don’t really get what’s going on. I’ve heard about this a lot, but I’m confused.”  Keep in mind that Correia 2.2 is literally a genius. Her reading scores in 2nd grade met the requirements for graduating high school seniors. She doesn’t have to do standardized testing anymore.  She’s one of the smart kids at smart kid school.  She plays normal/dumb around other kids because she’s analytical enough to understand social issues and doesn’t want to frighten them with her scary computer brain. If it wasn’t for her love of girly froo-froo pretty pretty pink princess Barbie girly stuff, she’d be Sheldon Cooper.

So 2.2’s not confused because she’s young, she’s confused because it is confusing.

So during dinner I came up with this quick fairy tale to explain Obamacare and the recent Supreme Court decision to my children, ages 12 to 0.5, (complete with me doing voices).

#

Once there was a kingdom, where the dumb son of a bitch in charge said, “Hey everybody should have cake! Cake is awesome!”

But others answered, “Yes, cake is awesome… I’m fond of mine. What’re you getting at?”

And they said, “It is sad that not everybody can have cake. So let’s mandate cake for everybody!”

“But we can’t afford to give everyone cake. Cake is expensive, and the kingdom is broke.”

“Oh, no. There’s plenty of cake to go around. Magic unicorns will make the cake cheaper for everyone, and then mandate that everybody has to buy our delicious cake.”

“Wait a second… First off I don’t think unicorns are real, and looking through this 2,000 page recipe, this isn’t cake. This is poop. I don’t want to eat poop cake.”

“No. It is delicious. And it is cheap. You’ll just have to pass the recipe to know what’s in it.”

“But the cake is made of poop. And it’s not cheap, it is the most expensive poop ever made.”

“Quit being racist. The cake is moist and wonderful, and it is mandatory that you have to buy it.”

“Well, most of us have cake, and 90% of us are happy with our cake. So just leave us the hell alone.”

“Nope. Can’t do that. We need to change your cake to the new improved recipe so we can all be equal, or we’ll send an IRS SWAT team to your house to kill your entire family. Isn’t cake wonderful?”

So the leaders of the kingdom decided to mandate cake for everyone and the stupid cheered. Yay cake!  Since this decision was rushed through in record time, and very few people had actually read the recipe, many people were upset to discover that the recipe was poop. In fact, it was the most expensive poop ever. So the people rose up and cast down record numbers of their leaders that had voted for the poop cake.

Sadly, there were still many stupid people who were expecting the big bucket of shit they’d placed into the oven to come out tasting like fresh strawberries and vanilla frosting in 2014. So the recipe stayed.

Finally the supreme court of the land decided to look at the recipe. The supreme judge read it and said, “This isn’t cake. This is clearly poop. However, you stupid bastards voted for it, which ain’t our problem, so shut up and enjoy your poop cake.”

And they all lived happily ever after, until the kingdom collapsed under the massive debt of their mandatory poop cake, everyone got sick and died. THE END.

#

So say no to poop cake. Vote Romney, 2012.

Yes, I know, they’re all the same, blah blah friggin’ blah… Look, you guys all know I’m not a big Romney fan, but he’s way better than Obama on, oh, say EVERYTHING. And as much as you bitch about the parties being the same, the Republican congress has already voted to get rid of Obamacare only to be blocked by the Democrat senate. Romney is running on getting rid of this. So despite him being electable in Massachusetts and all the things he’s done which have annoyed me, electing him is now our only realistic chance to kill Obamacare. Period.

Planning my book tour
The Burning Throne, Episode 34: The All Mother

Leave a Reply

133 Comments on "Shut up and eat your poop cake."

Notify of
avatar

Minimum Wage Historian.
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

Caesar does not want poop cake! 🙁

Alan
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

Your story sounds like GLaDOS wrote it.

D
Guest
D
3 years 11 months ago

Can I have pie? I like pie.

lpcard
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

No. Have some cake.

Rev. Paul
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

Well said.

Steve
Guest
Steve
3 years 11 months ago
Saying Romney is better than Obama is like saying a poop cake with only 95% poop is better than a poop cake with 100% poop. While true, its still poop. Romney would have voted for (and the Republicans did) the NDAA. The bill that allows the Indefinite Detention of American citizens even in the US without a trial. The same one that a judge temporary stopped because it probably violates a few amendments. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-judge-katherine-forrest-modern-american-hero As far as the judge, I am no expert in the court system but I thought the supreme court was supposed to make decisions based on… Read more »
Jeff Gauch
Guest
Jeff Gauch
3 years 11 months ago
“Romney would have voted for (and the Republicans did) the NDAA. The bill that allows the Indefinite Detention of American citizens even in the US without a trial.” No, it doesn’t. You could, if you tilted your head, squinted, and gave yourself a frontol lobotomy, have made the argument that the Senate version did. Though there were a few counterarguments: 1) such a provision would be so blatantly unconstitutional and bereft of any justification there’s no way Congress intended that and 2) the very next section specifically excluded American citizens from the disposition process the detention was a prelude to.… Read more »
Steve
Guest
Steve
3 years 11 months ago
You are wrong on every point Your straw-man is easy enough to counter. Simply read the court transcripts (or read the ZeroHedge article I linked above) The judge (who must have “tilted her head, squinted, and gave herself a frontol lobotomy”) in the case repeatedly asked the Administration lawyers for some type of assurance that the law could NOT be used to arrest and detain American Citizens and they could not. Here is a quick snip. It kinda reminds me of another bill that we have to pass to see whats in it. – Judge Forrest was pushing to determine… Read more »
Jeff Gauch
Guest
Jeff Gauch
3 years 11 months ago

Or you could, you know, READ THE GORAM LAW. It’s not hard, go to thomas.loc.gov, search for H.R. 1540. It’s section 1021.

What part of

“Nothing in this section shall be construed
to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of
United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States,
or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United
States.”

confuses you?

Steve
Guest
Steve
3 years 11 months ago

Its probably the same part that confused the Judge who blocked it

http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/05/16/46550.htm

What part of a Judge blocking the law based on the oral arguments from lawyers for the Obama administration is confusing you?

Jeff Gauch
Guest
Jeff Gauch
3 years 11 months ago

I’m not confused. It’s obvious that Judge Forrest makes John Roberts looke like a rocket scientist. There is nothing in the text of the law that supports her opinion. This is nothing more than a bunch of media whores getting together to get attention from the media.

Steve
Guest
Steve
3 years 11 months ago
Jeff If you believe that the Judge in this case is the issue then you probably have not bothered to read any of the reporting on what was said in the court. If you read the details of the oral arguments and still feel that way, then I am at a complete loss for what maybe your issue. You are discussing one section of the law while the Judge has directly asked the Obama administration lawyers specific real examples that would test the whole law. It seems obvious from the court transcripts that the law is much to vague and… Read more »
Steve
Guest
Steve
3 years 11 months ago
It appears like the blog does not like a ton of links. I tried to create a post with links to each specific piece of legislation but it does not post. It looks like the Judge is not the only one concerned about the NDAA and section 1021. Here is a list of states that have introduced legislation to counter it. Some of the legislation has failed but this is still good news if you believe in states rights. Arizona SCR 1011 and SB 1182 Kansas HR 6021 Maine HP 1397 Maryland HJ 0012 Missouri SB819 and HB 2066 Oklahoma… Read more »
joecrouse
Guest
joecrouse
3 years 11 months ago
A bit much with the hyperbole. I agree that this is a TERRIBAD plan, I KNOW its going to blow up in the face of the people and government but will do so at such at time when Obama is Out of office and long since retired to an island somewhere (which we should immediately nuke into radioactive glass when the it does blow up on us) The Concept is nice IF there were provisions to hold down costs and institute tort reform maybe setting up a special court JUST to hear medical claims cases (12 person Panel 7 doctors… Read more »
Russell
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

“electing him is now our only realistic chance to kill Obamacare. Period.”

We’re screwed.

Rick
Guest
Rick
3 years 11 months ago

Ouch…I hate poop cake…hmm…I’ve always wondered…if progress is the act of moving forward then what is congress…oh well, I guess I’m not smart enough to know the difference…*wink*…*wink*…

Skip
Guest
Skip
3 years 11 months ago

Romney, left to his own devices, would be an unmitigated disaster. Not as bad as the current disaster in the White House, but close. So since we have no choice, we have to vote for 80% poop instead of 100%, it’s imperative that enough GOP Congressmen with spines get elected to stop whichever liberal President we’re stuck with for the next four years.

lpcard
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

Just remember, it’s not Obama that created this poop cake. He just approved the recipe.

If you want to make a statement vote for a President. If you want to make a difference, vote for a Senator or Congresscritter.

Kristoff Oliviformis (@BassBro123)
Guest
NR Pax
Guest
NR Pax
3 years 11 months ago

The very big difference is that it only applied to the State of Massachusetts. Obamacare, by contrast, encompassed the whole country.

NKR
Guest
NKR
3 years 11 months ago
Important point. If people hate the system in Mass, they can go to another state where the system hasn’t been screwed up. Nationwide legislation like this means the screw up affects us all. Another thing people who support the Mass program seem to forget is that it’s still pretty new and it’s already a money-pit. So you haven’t felt it yet? You will. Now imagine that nationwide. Again, there will be nowhere to go to escape the poop-cake. This healthcare plan is not self-sustaining. It can’t pay for itself. It will — as such programs have all over the world… Read more »
skoshi
Guest
skoshi
3 years 11 months ago

Romney won’t repeal Obamacare; he provided the blueprint and loves the concept. He’s just having to pretend like he’s against it in order to maintain his Republican facade… just like Hatch, who partnered with Chappaquiddick Ted many times trying to get healthcare through, but now has to pretend like he’s against it because “the other side” got it passed.

If you want to stop Obamacare, turn to your local elections and get the state to nullify:
http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/obamacare-upheld-as-constitutional-what-now

Here’s a good rant on Roberts:
http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1162.html

Kristoff Oliviformis (@BassBro123)
Guest

^this.

peavybob
Guest
peavybob
3 years 11 months ago

I only skimmed through the review on roberts, but I believe they were misinterpreting it. They seemed to be saying that the mandatory purchase was the tax, whereas I believe the “penalty” was the tax. Or if you want to get technical, it would be a 1% tax on all americans, but americans who purchase healthcare get a tax credit for it. Then again, I’m not an accountant, what do you think larry?

cthulhu
Guest
cthulhu
3 years 11 months ago

Romney may suck, true but he will repeal Obamacare. We need to repeal this bill and we need all the votes we can get. So you can take the moral high-ground and vote for a third party, but don’t complain when Obama wins and you get to chew a nice juicey poop cake for years to come.

NKR
Guest
NKR
3 years 11 months ago
I’m surrounded by poop-cake revelers. They actually think their Cadillac health insurance won’t change. Obama said we’d get to keep our insurance! Well, we can keep it. It will just wither and be smaller and smaller and then they will go bankrupt. And then the poop-cake revelers will look to the throne and say “wha happan?” And we just had Romney’s adviser going on MSNBC and saying “it’s not a tax, it’s a penalty”. Why is that guy — the one who uttered the brilliant “etch-a-sketch” line — still working for Romney? I’m going need a titanium clothes pin to… Read more »
ronm0817
Guest
ronm0817
3 years 11 months ago
So this is what I did and sums up my thoughts on this admittedly very confusing subject. I also completely agree with (joecrouse). I think everyone should pen a similar letter this the least we can to let the rulers know the peasants are not pleased. Chief Justice John G. Roberts & Associate Justices: Stephen G Bryer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagen, Sonia M. Sotomayor Supreme Court of the United States 1 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543 Dear Justice Roberts: Today your decision along with Associate Justices Bryer, Ginsburg, Kagen, and Sotomayor to keep the Affordable Care Act a.k.a.… Read more »
perlhaqr
Guest
perlhaqr
3 years 11 months ago

It’s Breyer.

ronm0817
Guest
ronm0817
3 years 11 months ago

OK Fixed the name thanks. damned oversight!

Squeaky Wheel
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Even if that lunch if poop cake.

thewriterinblack
Guest
3 years 11 months ago
Regarding Robert’s “logic” in allowing Obamacare to stand: “Resolved that in this era of racial tensions, it would be better for their own safety and security that people of certain ethnic, religious, or racial descent live in certain secure gated communities. Congress cannot mandate where people live, of course, but we would like to encourage proper behavior. Therefore any person not living in appropriately located housing, as defined by this act, shall be assessed a $10,000 per year tax.” The above is fiction, of course, of a particularly horrifying variety. But in the wake of the Roberts decision yesterday can… Read more »
Speakertweaker
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

“Quit being racist. The cake is moist and wonderful, and it is mandatory that you have to buy it.”

I had to stop and laugh at that point.

Speakertweaker
Guest
3 years 11 months ago
And on the political note, I have to add only this: yes, Romney is running on repeal, and who knows; maybe it’ll happen (I don’t see how, unless the Republicans get filibuster-proof majorities in both houses, which I do not want). It doesn’t change the fact that SCOTUS just continued a long trend of not limiting federal authority; now the song is in the key of Tax instead of Commerce Clause. Now, for as long as I can remember, every politician I’ve ever seen has said A and done B. I’m less interested in Romney saying he’ll do A, and… Read more »
thewriterinblack
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

Since the Supreme Court has made at least the individual mandate a tax, my understanding is that rules of the Senate don’t allow filibuster. A simple majority in both houses is sufficient to repeal a tax.

ronm0817
Guest
ronm0817
3 years 11 months ago

That is correct as I understand it. Perhaps the foundation of the law can be kicked out from under it.

Speakertweaker
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

Hey, man, I’m all for it. I’m trying to figure out where exactly the rules don’t allow for filibuster, though. There appear to be some pretty nasty ways around a filibuster, but as far as I can tell the filibuster is still allowed. The only solid exception I’ve found so far is budget matters that can pass on reconciliation (there’s *that* word again…).

rrobertschwartz
Guest
rrobertschwartz
3 years 11 months ago

Unfortunately, there are too many people w/out taste.

NR Pax
Guest
NR Pax
3 years 11 months ago

Romney would only be a small part of the solution. The bigger part is electing governors who actually have the guts to tell the feds to “go forth and multiply.”

Karl Ryan
Guest
Karl Ryan
3 years 11 months ago

Can my poop cake have a file in it? I’ll need it to work on the bars to my health care cell.

Nightcrawler
Guest
Nightcrawler
3 years 11 months ago
I love it when people post link’s to Lew Rockwell’s page. You’ll never find a more worthless sack of shit pretending to be a freedom fighter. See, “freedom fighter” implies that you, you know, actually fight. Lew Rockwell and his self-involved ilk have repeatedly called for NOT voting, not getting involved, etc. http://lewrockwell.com/peters-e/peters-e206.html There you go, Ron Paul fans. Don’t vote. That’ll get Ron Paul elected. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/114847.html Complaining about “military idolatry”, from a sniveling coward who’s never had the spine to lace up a pair of combat boots and resents his betters. You know how Ron Paul went from being… Read more »
perlhaqr
Guest
perlhaqr
3 years 11 months ago

Look, you guys all know I’m not a big Romney fan, but he’s way better than Obama on, oh, say EVERYTHING.

If this wasn’t a post about Obamacare, which was modelled on Romneycare in MA, this would not be nearly so ironic of a statement from you, Larry. I.e.: This is the one ultra-gigantic thing he’s very clearly absolutely not better than Obama on.

Jake
Guest
Jake
3 years 11 months ago

I must’ve missed the part of Romneycare where it applied to all US citizens and not just the Massachusetts folks. You know, so it could comply with the state constitution and not conflict with that pesky 10th Amendment the US version has. That’s all right, the entire Romneycare bill is just 70 pages long, shouldn’t take too long to read it over.

perlhaqr
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

What on earth does that have to do with anything? Yes, as Governor of MA, Romney could only damage MA. Very astute of you to notice that, sir.

I want Gary Johnson to be president in 2012. Given that that isn’t happening, I’d prefer Romney to Obama. I was pointing out the irony of claiming that Romney is superior to Obama In a post about the terrible thing that Obama did that Romney did first. Even though yes, as you so cleverly mention, the State of Massachussetts can’t pass Federal legislation.

Steve
Guest
Steve
3 years 11 months ago
I am not trying to say that every Rep is bad, there are good ones, But the good ones are not the ones running for President, Romney is. I would not include Allen West in the good column, he was the sole person on your list that voted for NDAA. If you can compromise and vote for Romney since he said something in a campaign speech you agree with then that is what you have to do. But I think its a trap, as long as we keep voting for a candidate that we hate the least. We will never… Read more »
Kristopher
Guest
Kristopher
3 years 11 months ago

Go ahead and hold your breath until we Republicans nominate a candidate you like.

Here is a rubber band and a plastic bag in case you need some help.

If you want to support better nominees, then get involved in the party. If you are too lazy or cowardly to do this, then lump it.

Writing endless screeds in the internet and complaining about your choice of nominees does nothing to actually fix anything.

Steve
Guest
Steve
3 years 11 months ago
1) I am supporting my candidate and will vote for him in the election 2) Writing on the internet CAN do something to fix it the issues we face. Did you know the FED was made up of private banks and we have to pay interest to these banks when our government creates money? Did you know Jackson got rid of the Second Central bank and why? If not then maybe you took the time to watch the video’s and maybe you learned a little. And even if you did not, maybe someone else did. They may not support my… Read more »
Kristopher
Guest
Kristopher
3 years 11 months ago
Writing on the internets is a poor second to actual political organizing. If you had actually gotten involved in your local precinct, you might have actually helped your candidate get the nomination. But he did not have any real hard support … just a bunch of internet screedwriters. So the candidate that actually had folks show up at party local and state conventions will be the one with all the delegates at the national convention. So guess who wins. You, and folks like you, expected that you could win by writing screeds instead of getting off your ass and packing… Read more »
Steve
Guest
Steve
3 years 11 months ago
My guy won my state You know what else is a poor second? Trying to compete with all the money that to big to fail banks poured into the Romney campaign when your biggest contributor is the US Army. Does it bother you that your guys top 4 contributors all got billions of tax payer money in a Government bailout while the top 3 contributors to my guy are all branches of the armed forces? Mitt Romney Goldman Sachs $593,080 JPMorgan Chase & Co $467,089 Bank of America $425,100 Morgan Stanley $399,850 Credit Suisse Group $390,360 Ron Paul US Army… Read more »
Kristopher
Guest
Kristopher
3 years 11 months ago
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/delegates Paul did well in three non-binding caucus states, and he got one more delegates than Romney in SD. Enough folks have pledged for Romney to make it mathematically impossible for him to lose. That tells me his people did not get the ground work done. Money is a poor substitute for having people at the county conventions. You have to have the bodies at the county conventions in order to get the state convention delegates. Non-binding caucus states simply require you to show up once. Showing and doing the work > internet screeding You want to get a libertarian… Read more »
Steve
Guest
Steve
3 years 11 months ago
The was a issue in the 2008 election when a Utah delegate wanted to vote for Mitt vs the presumptive nominee and winner of Utah’s popular vote, John McCain. The issue was forwarded to the RNC General Council and the reply was [The] RNC does not recognize a state’s binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose. The national convention allows delegates to vote for the individual of their choice, regardless of whether the person’s name is officially placed into nomination or not. Delegates that are bound, are bound at… Read more »
peavybob
Guest
peavybob
3 years 11 months ago

So if your point was that you don’t care, then what was the point of writing 4 posts just to say so?

Steve
Guest
Steve
3 years 11 months ago

I think you may have just glossed over vs read what I wrote. The point was that once the election process is complete I wont waste any time crying about the outcome, not that I dont care who wins.

truman
Guest
truman
3 years 11 months ago

Please Please Please publish an illustrated book with this Fairy Tale!!!

egoncasteel
Guest
egoncasteel
3 years 11 months ago

So instead of explaining to your highly intelligent daughter that the insurance mandate (what the ruling was about) is necessarily to pass the portion of the bill eliminating denying insurance coverage based on pre existing conditions. So kids that get sick can get insurance after they can no longer be on there parents. You told a poop joke. 🙁

ronm0817
Guest
ronm0817
3 years 11 months ago
egoncasteel Ivan the Terrible said; “That in order to be a great nation, sometimes you have to let your people starve in the streets”. It is always the plaintiff cry of Liberal Progressives that we must not let a single person suffer in our society; and, that it is our moral and political responsibility to save them all. The 15 or 45 million(who really knows how many) and the strong arming of insurance companies to take on enormous water to insure all with prior illness regardless, will cause America to go broke. We were founded as a nation with the… Read more »
egoncasteel
Guest
egoncasteel
3 years 11 months ago
Hay I’m fine with letting them die in streets, but they don’t. Their unpaid bills just inflate my medical bills. That is why everyone needs insurance. I like the market idea. Let the insurance companies publish prices based on a few pieces of demographic information (sex, age, state) anyone that meets those qualifications can buy in at that price. Let there be real competition. Give me some real choice besides what ever my employer buys into. Give me the freedom to change jobs with out worrying about insurance. Give me the security of knowing that if I get laid off… Read more »
ronm0817
Guest
ronm0817
3 years 11 months ago
It is the avalanche of unintended consequences that are just about how much money for Social Issues can we stand versus the rest of us having liberty. Even your plea for job mobility costs too much money. It should not be paid for by everyone. Taxation and Governmental Debt have limits. Ultimately you break your society into hostile camps or worse you cause societal collapse by going to far one way or another. We should drive equidistant between the ditches of Upton Sinclair’s, “The Jungle” on the Right and Orwell’s, “1984” on the Left. Obama is tinkering with those boundaries… Read more »
egoncasteel
Guest
egoncasteel
3 years 11 months ago
I agree that nether side can nor should completely have its way even if we disagree on where the pendulum is right now. I would honestly like to see all roads privatized and converted to toll roads. No really, I mean it. This isn’t some liberal mind game. Keep reading. We have the technology to do this efficiency with systems like ipass. I would like to only pay for the roads I use. I hate seeing millions of Fed dollars from my taxes go to build infrastructure I will never use. If companies have to pass on the extra transportation… Read more »
Speakertweaker
Guest
3 years 11 months ago
Was the trial not about whether the mandate to purchase insurance was constitutional? Permit me, if you will, to answer your question with a question: how many cases concerning ACA were argued before the Court, and why? Was the mandate not required to keep the pre existing condition protection? Because if you can’t deny based on pre existing conditions there would be nothing to keep people from waiting until they were ill before buying insurance. Yes, but that falls exceptionally short of the bigger picture. The mandate’s primary existence is so that younger, healthier people (who wouldn’t otherwise purchase insurance)… Read more »
egoncasteel
Guest
egoncasteel
3 years 11 months ago
I am guessing in that ACA refers to Affordable Care Act. I would say that one reason that there are so many ACA cases is that the health insurance industry stands to lose a lot if the movement for universal health care continues. That 10s of Billions of dollars. So of coarse they would do all thy can to fight it. I am not saying it is the only reason but that alone would explain it. I would have to say that the assumption that young people don’t need insurance is fundamentally wrong. Lets just look at ATV accidents. After… Read more »
peavybob
Guest
peavybob
3 years 11 months ago

So let me get this straight larry, Are you saying the cake is a lie?

D
Guest
D
3 years 11 months ago

Well played!

Will
Guest
Will
3 years 11 months ago

Larry C
I sent money for patches thru Paypal! Can u confirm?

Joe in PNG
Guest
Joe in PNG
3 years 11 months ago

I think it’s simple- when a good part of the People of the USA stop wanting free stuff, then the government will stop making and giving out poop cake.

Otherwise, if the people want free stuff, even a President Ron Gault De la Paz isn’t going to cut them off- and if he tries, he’s gone. Because, hey- even poop cake is free cake, amiright?

egoncasteel
Guest
egoncasteel
3 years 11 months ago

Larry, I wanted to let you know that even though we don’t agree on poltics I do really like your books.

Cadeyrn
Guest
Cadeyrn
3 years 11 months ago
See, here’s the thing. Congress does have the power to tax, but it was never intended to have the power to directly tax individuals. The original Constitution specifically prohibited a capitation or direct tax. The socialists actually won the war in 1913 with the passage of the 16th and 17th amendments, but it has taken a while for the effects to be fully felt. Prior to the passage of these abominations, the system worked very well for 150 years. Now the federal government can do pretty much anything it wants to. Individual citizens were never expected to stand against the… Read more »
Keith G.
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

Come on Larry. . . we all know “poop” is code-language for. . . . poop.

And DATS RAAAAACIST !!!!!!

Sorry. been around liberals all day, some of it was sticking to me, but, luckily, Charmin removes it and it flushes easily. . .

What you said. Only Squared and Cubed. . .

Barak Ilyich Antoinette Roberts
Guest
Barak Ilyich Antoinette Roberts
3 years 11 months ago

“Let them eat poop cake…”

B.E. Sanderson
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

OMG, that is frickin’ awesome. I just finished Hard Magic and went looking for you online and this… Damn glad I found you. And thanks for putting this in language even a half-dead monkey could understand. (Extra thanks for the full-on belly laugh first thing this morning.)

DanB
Guest
DanB
3 years 11 months ago

This rant (and subsequent comments by the author) is one of the reasons that I keep making sure that Larry gets a portion of my income.

bigdeville2000
Guest
bigdeville2000
3 years 11 months ago

I totally agree, I have purchased all of Larry’s books in eARC, regular ebook, dead tree book and audible versions. I do whatever I can to help support Larry’s miniatures habit to keep him happy so he will keep producing awesome books and rants, keep up the good works.

DaveP.
Guest
DaveP.
3 years 11 months ago

Thing is, this decision has made it pretty hard (if not impossible) for Romney to oppose eliminating Obamacare. If he gets onto the debate stage and starts talking about how Obama is a right-on guy and he’s gonna make sure Obama’s signature achievement goes forward, he’s gonna lose- and he knows it.

Jake
Guest
Jake
3 years 11 months ago
I don’t know. Both versions of [person]Care seem functionally similar, and though there are differences, I don’t think there’s much point in Romney spending much time trying to highlight those differences. They’re not quick, easy, or (most importantly) clear to describe outside of a few talking points, like highlighting the 70 vs 2700 pages, for example. That’s the sort of thing that needs a presentation, not a press conference or a debate to get across, and honestly, the electorate doesn’t have time or patience for that. Anyone who’s worked in sales knows you have at most a minute, maybe two,… Read more »
Mike
Guest
Mike
3 years 11 months ago
I’m in the minority in an aspect of the decision. I don’t think it was a “bad” decision. Weirdly reasoned but not bad. Just because the law is bad does not make it illegal per se (I note there are differences between ‘can’ and ‘should’ as well as laws and ethics). This has been building in jurisprudence for a while. Roberts could have struck it down, but I find Pounelle’s reasoning persuasive in that Roberts has moved the court away from the business of saving us from the lawmakers we selected our ownselves. IIRC there was a line to that… Read more »
Jake Sallee
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

Wow, Larry you are one of my personal heroes. I will be retelling your story to my friends and family on the 4th at the cook out I’m having … correct citation will be provided of course, is MLA formatting ok with you?

Also, what are your thoughts on the Fair Tax … seems to look better every time I look into it.

Tyna Merrill
Guest
Tyna Merrill
3 years 11 months ago

(in a sing song-y voice) Obama’s “great, gives us” poopy “cake!”

guedenimbo
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

If I go off the grid live off the land shake my cane at trespassers will I still have to eat the poop cake?

Irishdoh
Guest
Irishdoh
3 years 11 months ago

Yep, and if’n you don’t they’ll tax…er, penalize you so that you can’t pay your property tax. Then they’ll take your land because you haven’t paid your taxes… Or was it a penalty? Well, either way, IRS agents will show up, take your land (and your cane) and shove poop cake down your throat. Then you’ll be in the hospital saving the taxpayer thousands of dollars somehow…

guedenimbo
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

ooo I hope they do take my cane. I’m disabled and if I fall when they take my cane that’s a lawsuit.
Personally I hate how litigious society has become, still if they are going to play screw the citizen over with BS laws I’ll gladly lawyer up and stick it to them.

Imagine those headlines IRS enforcers take cane from crippled 27 year old 🙂

Adam Johansson
Guest
Adam Johansson
3 years 11 months ago

What kind of icing will be on the poop cake? Because I don’t like that whipped cream stuff.
What this means is that by calling anything a tax, the .gov can control it. Just like the 1934 NFA was a “tax”. If this stands we’re even more screwed than we were.

stevepoling (@stevepoling)
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

Good post. Thanks for having the guts to write this.

Six
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

“electing him is now our only realistic chance to kill Obamacare. Period.”

Exactly correct.

SCOTUS has made me a single issue voter. So be it. I will now support, contribute to and vote for Romney.

guedenimbo
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

Part of me things the Chief Justice did that on purpose. While he could have struck down the law because it was unconstitutional finding a way to basically say “you voted Obama in now deal with the results” is kind of a way of saying “voting matters you idiots”. I’ve heard from countless sources that said they actually didn’t vote in 2008, on top of that 30% of those who identify as conservative don’t vote or aren’t registered.
It’s as much the voting populous’ fault as those in office that the law passed in the first place.

DaveP.
Guest
DaveP.
3 years 11 months ago
Occam’s Razor says that Roberts did a stupid thing because he meant to do a stupid thing. One of our problems is that the Supremes are too powerful, far out of line withthe intended Checks and Balances. This is why SC Justice picks are so supremely important: jsut one can warp the trajectory of legislation for decades. My solution is to actually employ the Forgotten Check on the Court: impeachment. If it’s important for the Court to be nonpartisan and to use the Constitution as a yardstick, removing activist or capricous justices (I’m looking at YOU, Ginsberg) isn’t jsut a… Read more »
guedenimbo
Guest
3 years 11 months ago
It may have been a stupid thing, but it may have been his only choice. I think the law sucks, but technically it’s up to us to vote the POTUS out and as many Senators as possible and then have their replacements remove the law. You’re right the court is powerful, and I would like to hope they went this way so as not to use their power too much. To strike down the whole law would have been activism, we can’t complain when Liberal judges legislate from the bench and then expect Conservatives to do the same. Our job… Read more »
DaveP.
Guest
DaveP.
3 years 11 months ago

Will respectfully disagree with you there. Even Roberts admitted that the law was unconstitutional… then he effectively rewrote the State’s arguements, torturing logic until he could pass as a “tax” a law that was invalid any other way. Now THAT was ‘Judicial Activism”. Doing a justice’s job- striking down laws that don’t pass Constitutional muster- is not activism, but the job the Supremes claim as the basis of their authority.
And where in the world did this “duty of the court to uphold Congress’ will” come from?!

guedenimbo
Guest
3 years 11 months ago
Yes the way it was written was unconstitutional. I think Roberts looked at it like this, “there is a way that the law could be legal” and often times the SCOTUS looks to the intent of a law not just the way it was written. That is as much of what they do as is making sure it stands up to constitutional muster. I think Roberts realized that if there was any way to read it that would make it legal it was the courts responsibility to read it that way. I wish he had struck it down, but I… Read more »
Steve
Guest
Steve
3 years 11 months ago

Sorry for the double post, to much celebration today maybe

I also respectfully disagree. Much of what you mention is NOT the Supreme Courts role. The only option that I can see is that this is judicial legislation for political reasons. How can a Supreme Court find this as a Tax when it was specifically pointed out several times by Obama and his administration that this was NOT a tax. Such as the interview with George Stephanopoulos

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Ted N
Guest
Ted N
3 years 11 months ago

Steve: Because words mean exactly what they say they mean, when they say them, not what any stupid old book says, and they can change the meaning any old time they want.

Superpowers are fun, no? 😀

Steve
Guest
Steve
3 years 11 months ago

I have to admit that I was wrong. It seems while Obama was (and still is today) is denying that this was a tax his solicitor general (verrilli) was standing in front of the Supreme Court arguing that it was a tax

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-398-Tuesday.pdf

I think this sheds a bit of light on Roberts actions (at least for me) but I still dont agree with it. I assumed he pulled this tax stuff out of his butt but he had to consider it because it was part of the oral arguments

guedenimbo
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

I’m not happy about the ruling at all either. You’re right about it being part of the oral arguments, as well as the written brief(almost dead last though). I still don’t get how the administration can continue to say it’s not a tax, when they even argued for it being a tax as the last ditch part of their case.

I just can’t wait till the law is gone for good and it will all be just a bad memory.

ronm0817
Guest
ronm0817
3 years 11 months ago

It is worse than a tax it is an intrusive edict by the government compelling individuals to do something that is not in the tenants of common law. It is autocratically and puts asunder any notion of liberty. A true fur lined bear trap we cannot afford and which will not remedy the problem of health care it will rather decrease the current system to 1950’s public heath standards. And shipwreck Medical Research and Drug research. And worse, it will result in death squad decisions for older Americans ultimately.

guedenimbo
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

I know you’re preaching to the choir. There isn’t one thing good about this law, and no part of it is in line with the spirit of American Individualism.

Steve
Guest
Steve
3 years 11 months ago

I also respectfully disagree. Much of what you mention is NOT the Supreme Courts role. The only option that I can see is that this is judicial legislation for political reasons. How can a Supreme Court find this as a Tax when it was specifically pointed out several times by Obama and his administration that this was NOT a tax. Such as the interview with George Stephanopoulos

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Gary Vandegrift
Guest
Gary Vandegrift
3 years 11 months ago

Steve, you really need to read more, instead of simply listening to the lamestream media. The Obama adminstration argued that the mandate WAS a tax before the Supreme Court. Just another example of Obama’s lies.

guedenimbo
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

That’s what really irks me. They argued both ways fine they were rats on a sinking ship and needed to try whatever means possible. Now that they “won” though they are out their lying saying it’s not a tax. Nancy Pilosy(don’t care enough to spell her name right) even said “it only affects 1-2% of people I would hardly call that a tax. First it affects more than that, second it affects the poorest among us. How the hell can they be the party of the people and then say taxing the poorest is hardy a tax…

Steve
Guest
Steve
3 years 11 months ago

I think we both should have read a bit more. See the post about 5 up from this spot and done days ago. But you are right, the Administration Attorney argued in front of the Supreme Court that it was a tax (I also provided a link to the transcripts)

martiniproductionsnyc
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

I’m pretty sure that no matter what America will be eating a variation of poop cake for many years to come!

D
Guest
D
3 years 11 months ago

Poop is as poop does.

Connor Clay
Guest
3 years 11 months ago

You do realize that taxes are easier to override than laws and constitutional amendments, right?

wpDiscuz