<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Popular Vote Speculation Interlude</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/</link>
	<description>Reality-based political commentary</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 05:31:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris1962</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22720</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris1962</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 04:44:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22720</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Congress passes laws.&lt;/i&gt;

Yeah, and as the law stood, under the commerce clause, it was deemed unconstitutional. Roberts took it upon himself to then conclude that if it HAD been a tax, instead, congress WOULD HAVE been within its constitutional authority to &quot;mandate&quot; it. Therefore, it MAY be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Congress passes laws.</i></p>
<p>Yeah, and as the law stood, under the commerce clause, it was deemed unconstitutional. Roberts took it upon himself to then conclude that if it HAD been a tax, instead, congress WOULD HAVE been within its constitutional authority to "mandate" it. Therefore, it MAY be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dsws</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22715</link>
		<dc:creator>dsws</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 03:27:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22715</guid>
		<description>Congress passes laws.  It does not pass doctrines of judicial construction.  The Court upheld the part of the law that the bet referred to, even if they did it under a different doctrine than counsel for the administration argued for.  

Stop trying to get Michale to renege.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Congress passes laws.  It does not pass doctrines of judicial construction.  The Court upheld the part of the law that the bet referred to, even if they did it under a different doctrine than counsel for the administration argued for.  </p>
<p>Stop trying to get Michale to renege.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris1962</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22698</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris1962</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:01:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22698</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;Michale&lt;/b&gt;: &lt;i&gt;But I am satisfied that David won... There wasn&#039;t a plain english hint of unconstitutionality within the SCOTUS&#039;s ruling. At least none that I can see...&lt;/i&gt;

Well, the Court flat-out struck down mandating private-sector purchases under the Commerce Clause, which is the clause under which the law, and the mandate, was passed:

&lt;i&gt;The case challenged the court to fashion a judicially administrable principle that limits Congress’s power to act on the mere pretense of regulating interstate commerce. At least Roberts got the court to embrace emphatic language rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale for penalizing the inactivity of not buying insurance:

“The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. .?.?. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. .?.?. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and — under the government’s theory — empower Congress to make those decisions for him.”

If the mandate had been upheld under the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court would have decisively construed this clause so permissively as to give Congress an essentially unlimited police power — the power to mandate, proscribe and regulate behavior for whatever Congress deems a public benefit. Instead, &lt;b&gt;the court rejected the Obama administration’s Commerce Clause doctrine.&lt;/b&gt; The court remains clearly committed to this previous holding: “Under our written Constitution .?.?. the limitation of congressional authority is not solely a matter of legislative grace....”&lt;/i&gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-supreme-court-gives-conservatives-a-consolation-prize/2012/06/28/gJQAWyhY9V_print.html

The only reason CrapCare continues to stand is because Roberts accepted that congress COULD have passed the law under their taxation powers. The weird thing about the ruling, however, was that congress specifically didn&#039;t do that, specifically because they would never have been able to get their BlueDogs aboard a raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class bill.

INTERESTING how Roberts ignored that, accepted it as a tax, and dumped CrapCare back in O&#039;s lap. LOL. Think about that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Michale</b>: <i>But I am satisfied that David won... There wasn't a plain english hint of unconstitutionality within the SCOTUS's ruling. At least none that I can see...</i></p>
<p>Well, the Court flat-out struck down mandating private-sector purchases under the Commerce Clause, which is the clause under which the law, and the mandate, was passed:</p>
<p><i>The case challenged the court to fashion a judicially administrable principle that limits Congress’s power to act on the mere pretense of regulating interstate commerce. At least Roberts got the court to embrace emphatic language rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale for penalizing the inactivity of not buying insurance:</p>
<p>“The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. .?.?. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. .?.?. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and — under the government’s theory — empower Congress to make those decisions for him.”</p>
<p>If the mandate had been upheld under the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court would have decisively construed this clause so permissively as to give Congress an essentially unlimited police power — the power to mandate, proscribe and regulate behavior for whatever Congress deems a public benefit. Instead, <b>the court rejected the Obama administration’s Commerce Clause doctrine.</b> The court remains clearly committed to this previous holding: “Under our written Constitution .?.?. the limitation of congressional authority is not solely a matter of legislative grace....”</i><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-supreme-court-gives-conservatives-a-consolation-prize/2012/06/28/gJQAWyhY9V_print.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-supreme-court-gives-conservatives-a-consolation-prize/2012/06/28/gJQAWyhY9V_print.html</a></p>
<p>The only reason CrapCare continues to stand is because Roberts accepted that congress COULD have passed the law under their taxation powers. The weird thing about the ruling, however, was that congress specifically didn't do that, specifically because they would never have been able to get their BlueDogs aboard a raise-taxes-on-the-middle-class bill.</p>
<p>INTERESTING how Roberts ignored that, accepted it as a tax, and dumped CrapCare back in O's lap. LOL. Think about that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: akadjian</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22697</link>
		<dc:creator>akadjian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:56:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22697</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt; Yea, I have a half dozen surveillance cameras in my shop.. I&#039;ll open one up to GUESTS and you will be able to see me in all my OBAMA GOT OSAMA glory. &lt;/i&gt; 

That would be awesome indeed. 

&lt;i&gt; It&#039;s funny to see the Dems with their &quot;It&#039;s Constitutional, Bitches!!&quot; &lt;/i&gt; 

What&#039;s amusing to me is seeing liberals defend it so strongly and conservatives against it so strongly when it was once a conservative idea. It&#039;s a very up is down, down is up type of a thing. 

-David</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i> Yea, I have a half dozen surveillance cameras in my shop.. I'll open one up to GUESTS and you will be able to see me in all my OBAMA GOT OSAMA glory. </i> </p>
<p>That would be awesome indeed. </p>
<p><i> It's funny to see the Dems with their "It's Constitutional, Bitches!!" </i> </p>
<p>What's amusing to me is seeing liberals defend it so strongly and conservatives against it so strongly when it was once a conservative idea. It's a very up is down, down is up type of a thing. </p>
<p>-David</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22696</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:18:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22696</guid>
		<description>Well, now that it&#039;s been established that the Party in power can force the American people to buy ANYTHING.....

I can&#039;t wait to see the looks on the faces of the Left when President Romney and a GOP Congress forces all Americans to purchase firearms for their self-defense...

Won&#039;t THAT be a hoot, eh!??   :D

Michale......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, now that it's been established that the Party in power can force the American people to buy ANYTHING.....</p>
<p>I can't wait to see the looks on the faces of the Left when President Romney and a GOP Congress forces all Americans to purchase firearms for their self-defense...</p>
<p>Won't THAT be a hoot, eh!??   :D</p>
<p>Michale......</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22695</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:15:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22695</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s funny to see the Dems with their &quot;It&#039;s Constitutional, Bitches!!&quot;

My response???

&lt;B&gt;&quot;It&#039;s a tax, assholes!!&quot;&lt;/B&gt;  

:D

Michale....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It's funny to see the Dems with their "It's Constitutional, Bitches!!"</p>
<p>My response???</p>
<p><b>"It's a tax, assholes!!"</b>  </p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>Michale....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22694</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:13:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22694</guid>
		<description>At least there is a ray of sunshine today....

&lt;B&gt;House holds Holder in contempt over ‘Fast and Furious’ documents&lt;/B&gt;
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/house-eric-holder-contempt-vote-fast-furious-probe/

The House makes Holder do the Bi-Partisan Perp Walk...  :D


Michale......</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At least there is a ray of sunshine today....</p>
<p><b>House holds Holder in contempt over ‘Fast and Furious’ documents</b><br />
<a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/house-eric-holder-contempt-vote-fast-furious-probe/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/house-eric-holder-contempt-vote-fast-furious-probe/</a></p>
<p>The House makes Holder do the Bi-Partisan Perp Walk...  :D</p>
<p>Michale......</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22693</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:11:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22693</guid>
		<description>CW,

&lt;I&gt;See it live? Will there be webcam coverage? Do tell!&lt;/I&gt;

Yea, I have a half dozen surveillance cameras in my shop..  I&#039;ll open one up to GUESTS and you will be able to see me in all my OBAMA GOT OSAMA glory...

Just keep the fat jokes to a minimum..  I&#039;m a sensitive guy...  :D


Michale.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CW,</p>
<p><i>See it live? Will there be webcam coverage? Do tell!</i></p>
<p>Yea, I have a half dozen surveillance cameras in my shop..  I'll open one up to GUESTS and you will be able to see me in all my OBAMA GOT OSAMA glory...</p>
<p>Just keep the fat jokes to a minimum..  I'm a sensitive guy...  :D</p>
<p>Michale.....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22692</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 22:10:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22692</guid>
		<description>CW,

It&#039;s happened before. I am not sure what context I type in FTP, but it usually doesn&#039;t something funky like that..  It has to do with the fact that, in computer&#039;eze FTP is like HTTP...

Perhaps I should type it  F.T.P. for Friday Talking Points..

I feel like Kirk in THE PARADISE SYNDROME trying to figure out what sound combination triggered the door to the Obelisk on Miramanee&#039;s Planet..  :D


CB,

&lt;I&gt;Uh, the Court ruled that the mandate, under the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That&#039;s one of the things the Right won. The only reason CrapCare continues to stand is because Roberts accepted O&#039;s on-again-off-again argument that it was a tax. So I think Michale is off the tee-shirt hook.&lt;/I&gt;

I haven&#039;t read the ruling..  I doubt I could understand it, even if I did..

But I am satisfied that David won...  There wasn&#039;t a plain english hint of unconstitutionality within the SCOTUS&#039;s ruling. At least none that I can see...

While that may have not been the letter of the bet, it WAS the spirit of the bet...

While I think we are ALL equally amazed, I am satisfied that David won...

Michale.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CW,</p>
<p>It's happened before. I am not sure what context I type in FTP, but it usually doesn't something funky like that..  It has to do with the fact that, in computer'eze FTP is like HTTP...</p>
<p>Perhaps I should type it  F.T.P. for Friday Talking Points..</p>
<p>I feel like Kirk in THE PARADISE SYNDROME trying to figure out what sound combination triggered the door to the Obelisk on Miramanee's Planet..  :D</p>
<p>CB,</p>
<p><i>Uh, the Court ruled that the mandate, under the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That's one of the things the Right won. The only reason CrapCare continues to stand is because Roberts accepted O's on-again-off-again argument that it was a tax. So I think Michale is off the tee-shirt hook.</i></p>
<p>I haven't read the ruling..  I doubt I could understand it, even if I did..</p>
<p>But I am satisfied that David won...  There wasn't a plain english hint of unconstitutionality within the SCOTUS's ruling. At least none that I can see...</p>
<p>While that may have not been the letter of the bet, it WAS the spirit of the bet...</p>
<p>While I think we are ALL equally amazed, I am satisfied that David won...</p>
<p>Michale.....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris1962</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22690</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris1962</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:41:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22690</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;Chris:&lt;/b&gt; &lt;i&gt;Michale&#039;s bet was on the mandate&#039;s constitutionality (I volunteered as referee and laid down specifics beforehand).&lt;/i&gt;

Uh, the Court ruled that the mandate, under the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That&#039;s one of the things the Right won. The only reason CrapCare continues to stand is because Roberts accepted O&#039;s on-again-off-again argument that it was a tax. So I think Michale is off the tee-shirt hook.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Chris:</b> <i>Michale's bet was on the mandate's constitutionality (I volunteered as referee and laid down specifics beforehand).</i></p>
<p>Uh, the Court ruled that the mandate, under the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That's one of the things the Right won. The only reason CrapCare continues to stand is because Roberts accepted O's on-again-off-again argument that it was a tax. So I think Michale is off the tee-shirt hook.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22689</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:25:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22689</guid>
		<description>Michale -

Just read the other thread&#039;s comments.

The link you posted doesn&#039;t seem to work.  Maybe because it&#039;s an FTP link (the computer type, not the Friday column type)?

I dunno.  Anyway, try posting it again, let&#039;s see what&#039;s wrong and try to fix it....

-CW</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michale -</p>
<p>Just read the other thread's comments.</p>
<p>The link you posted doesn't seem to work.  Maybe because it's an FTP link (the computer type, not the Friday column type)?</p>
<p>I dunno.  Anyway, try posting it again, let's see what's wrong and try to fix it....</p>
<p>-CW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22688</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:15:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22688</guid>
		<description>Chris1962 -

Michale&#039;s bet was on the mandate&#039;s constitutionality (I volunteered as referee and laid down specifics beforehand).

He&#039;s got to wear a pro-Obama shirt at his place of business for a full day and (here&#039;s the kicker) CANNOT say why he&#039;s wearing it.  The only allowable response: &quot;Ask me again tomorrow.&quot;

Michale -

See it live?  Will there be webcam coverage?  Do tell!

OK, that&#039;s it.  I&#039;m done gloating, but I had to get a little of it off my chest.

I&#039;ve never even been a fan of the individual mandate, but I have to say I was shocked at the ruling -- more by the fact that Roberts flipped than anything else, really.

-CW</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Chris1962 -</p>
<p>Michale's bet was on the mandate's constitutionality (I volunteered as referee and laid down specifics beforehand).</p>
<p>He's got to wear a pro-Obama shirt at his place of business for a full day and (here's the kicker) CANNOT say why he's wearing it.  The only allowable response: "Ask me again tomorrow."</p>
<p>Michale -</p>
<p>See it live?  Will there be webcam coverage?  Do tell!</p>
<p>OK, that's it.  I'm done gloating, but I had to get a little of it off my chest.</p>
<p>I've never even been a fan of the individual mandate, but I have to say I was shocked at the ruling -- more by the fact that Roberts flipped than anything else, really.</p>
<p>-CW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Weigant</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22687</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Weigant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:11:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22687</guid>
		<description>Just logged on the computer, haven&#039;t read the news....

So, anything interesting happen?

[...snerk snerk snerk]

-CW</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just logged on the computer, haven't read the news....</p>
<p>So, anything interesting happen?</p>
<p>[...snerk snerk snerk]</p>
<p>-CW</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris1962</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22682</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris1962</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:21:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22682</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;Michale:&lt;/b&gt; &lt;i&gt;Oh, don&#039;t hold back. :D You definitely have earned the right to gloat.. :D No two ways about that..&lt;/i&gt;

I don&#039;t know what your bet was, Michale, but O only won two of the four rulings. So maybe you just have to wear half a tee-shirt. Unless, of course, you but that the whole law would be thrown out, in which case I think you&#039;re probably gonna have to wear the whole thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Michale:</b> <i>Oh, don't hold back. :D You definitely have earned the right to gloat.. :D No two ways about that..</i></p>
<p>I don't know what your bet was, Michale, but O only won two of the four rulings. So maybe you just have to wear half a tee-shirt. Unless, of course, you but that the whole law would be thrown out, in which case I think you're probably gonna have to wear the whole thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: akadjian</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22681</link>
		<dc:creator>akadjian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:14:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22681</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt; I am going to wear it at my shop this weekend. I serve about 80-100 customers a day on Sat &amp; Sun, about 70% of which are going to look at me like I am nutz.... :D &lt;/i&gt; 

LOL ... nice. One thing we&#039;ll never be able to say is that you&#039;re not a man of your word.

And remember ... you can&#039;t tell people you lost a bet ;) 

-David</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i> I am going to wear it at my shop this weekend. I serve about 80-100 customers a day on Sat &amp; Sun, about 70% of which are going to look at me like I am nutz.... :D </i> </p>
<p>LOL ... nice. One thing we'll never be able to say is that you're not a man of your word.</p>
<p>And remember ... you can't tell people you lost a bet ;) </p>
<p>-David</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22675</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:11:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22675</guid>
		<description>I am going to wear it at my shop this weekend.  I serve about 80-100 customers a day on Sat &amp; Sun, about 70% of which are going to look at me like I am nutz....  :D

Don&#039;t worry, you get to watch it live in all it&#039;s glory...   :D


Michale.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am going to wear it at my shop this weekend.  I serve about 80-100 customers a day on Sat &amp; Sun, about 70% of which are going to look at me like I am nutz....  :D</p>
<p>Don't worry, you get to watch it live in all it's glory...   :D</p>
<p>Michale.....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: akadjian</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22674</link>
		<dc:creator>akadjian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:02:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22674</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt; Yea, I still got my shirt, damn you! :D I have to unpack it now. I had it packed in a nice little box, all ready to send to you unworn... &lt;/i&gt; 

Heheheh ... where are you going to wear it again? 

-David</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i> Yea, I still got my shirt, damn you! :D I have to unpack it now. I had it packed in a nice little box, all ready to send to you unworn... </i> </p>
<p>Heheheh ... where are you going to wear it again? </p>
<p>-David</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22672</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:47:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22672</guid>
		<description>&lt;B&gt;The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health-care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers, and an excise tax on medical device manufacturers.&lt;/B&gt;
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/republicans-ruling-focuses-election-obamas-health-/

TWENTY ONE NEW TAXES on people earning less than $250K a year..

TWENTY ONE broken promises from President Obama...

As much as I hate to say it because I don&#039;t want to be one of THOSE kinds of losers, but this ruling might be the best thing that could have happened to the GOP...


Michale.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health-care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers, and an excise tax on medical device manufacturers.</b><br />
<a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/republicans-ruling-focuses-election-obamas-health-/" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/28/republicans-ruling-focuses-election-obamas-health-/</a></p>
<p>TWENTY ONE NEW TAXES on people earning less than $250K a year..</p>
<p>TWENTY ONE broken promises from President Obama...</p>
<p>As much as I hate to say it because I don't want to be one of THOSE kinds of losers, but this ruling might be the best thing that could have happened to the GOP...</p>
<p>Michale.....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22670</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:43:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22670</guid>
		<description>&lt;B&gt;&quot;Health Care Should &#039;Never Be Purchased With Tax Increases On Middle Class Families&quot;&lt;/B&gt;
-President Barack Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzs3aoRnl0E&amp;feature=youtu.be

I wonder how many of these former statements by Obama are going to come back and bite him on the arse...

I am thinking...  ALL OF THEM...   :D


Michale.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>"Health Care Should 'Never Be Purchased With Tax Increases On Middle Class Families"</b><br />
-President Barack Obama<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzs3aoRnl0E&amp;feature=youtu.be" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzs3aoRnl0E&amp;feature=youtu.be</a></p>
<p>I wonder how many of these former statements by Obama are going to come back and bite him on the arse...</p>
<p>I am thinking...  ALL OF THEM...   :D</p>
<p>Michale.....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22668</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:35:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22668</guid>
		<description>Oh, don&#039;t hold back.  :D  You definitely have earned the right to gloat..  :D  No two ways about that..


Michale.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, don't hold back.  :D  You definitely have earned the right to gloat..  :D  No two ways about that..</p>
<p>Michale.....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22666</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 18:30:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22666</guid>
		<description>Oh I am still here...  :D  Thursday is my Monday after all...

Yea, I still got my shirt, damn you!  :D  I have to unpack it now.  I had it packed in a nice little box, all ready to send to you unworn... 

Dammit...  :D

But I&#039;ll have the last laugh.  A little later today when the House makes Holder do the Bi-Partisan Perp Walk..  :D

And in November, when an unprecedented turnout of Righties, Independents and NPAs put the final nail in Obama&#039;s Presidency&#039;s coffin...  :D


Michale....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh I am still here...  :D  Thursday is my Monday after all...</p>
<p>Yea, I still got my shirt, damn you!  :D  I have to unpack it now.  I had it packed in a nice little box, all ready to send to you unworn... </p>
<p>Dammit...  :D</p>
<p>But I'll have the last laugh.  A little later today when the House makes Holder do the Bi-Partisan Perp Walk..  :D</p>
<p>And in November, when an unprecedented turnout of Righties, Independents and NPAs put the final nail in Obama's Presidency's coffin...  :D</p>
<p>Michale....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dsws</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22665</link>
		<dc:creator>dsws</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:37:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22665</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;In recent history, we&#039;ve already had one such election, as Al Gore got hundreds of thousands more votes than George W. Bush did.&lt;/i&gt;

Not just nationwide: in Florida, more people with the right to vote &lt;i&gt;tried&lt;/i&gt; to vote for Gore than Bush.  But thanks to the butterfly ballot and the hanging chad, enough of their votes could be thrown out to tip the election.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>In recent history, we've already had one such election, as Al Gore got hundreds of thousands more votes than George W. Bush did.</i></p>
<p>Not just nationwide: in Florida, more people with the right to vote <i>tried</i> to vote for Gore than Bush.  But thanks to the butterfly ballot and the hanging chad, enough of their votes could be thrown out to tip the election.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: akadjian</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22657</link>
		<dc:creator>akadjian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:04:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22657</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt; Hey David ... I&#039;m enjoying the peace and quiet, while it lasts. &lt;/i&gt; 

Heheh. I&#039;m not usually one to gloat, but because there was quite a bit of premature celebration on the part of a certain someone, I just have to say ... 

Do you have your t-shirt ready, Michale?  :)

That is all and I will do my best to refrain from here on out. 

-David</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i> Hey David ... I'm enjoying the peace and quiet, while it lasts. </i> </p>
<p>Heheh. I'm not usually one to gloat, but because there was quite a bit of premature celebration on the part of a certain someone, I just have to say ... </p>
<p>Do you have your t-shirt ready, Michale?  :)</p>
<p>That is all and I will do my best to refrain from here on out. </p>
<p>-David</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elizabeth Miller</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22643</link>
		<dc:creator>Elizabeth Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:31:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22643</guid>
		<description>Hey David ... I&#039;m enjoying the peace and quiet, while it lasts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey David ... I'm enjoying the peace and quiet, while it lasts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: akadjian</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22640</link>
		<dc:creator>akadjian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:53:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22640</guid>
		<description>Hey Michale ... where&#039;d you go?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Michale ... where'd you go?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LewDan</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22639</link>
		<dc:creator>LewDan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:45:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22639</guid>
		<description>Not sure relying on a national popular vote is such a good idea. The Electoral College was created as a buffer in case the electorate voted for someone truly dangerous since the founders didn&#039;t fully trust the wisdom of common people.

Given our own experience that a large percentage of citizens enthusiastically exercise their right to vote, while apparently being certifiably insane, I&#039;ve come to see their point. On the other hand, since those same people choose the electors to the Electoral College that solution hasn&#039;t worked out either.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not sure relying on a national popular vote is such a good idea. The Electoral College was created as a buffer in case the electorate voted for someone truly dangerous since the founders didn't fully trust the wisdom of common people.</p>
<p>Given our own experience that a large percentage of citizens enthusiastically exercise their right to vote, while apparently being certifiably insane, I've come to see their point. On the other hand, since those same people choose the electors to the Electoral College that solution hasn't worked out either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22628</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 13:17:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22628</guid>
		<description>To anyone who wants to witness history in the making online:

http://scotusblog.wpengine.com/

Michale.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To anyone who wants to witness history in the making online:</p>
<p><a href="http://scotusblog.wpengine.com/" rel="nofollow">http://scotusblog.wpengine.com/</a></p>
<p>Michale.....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michale</title>
		<link>http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/06/27/popular-vote-speculation-interlude/#comment-22627</link>
		<dc:creator>Michale</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:00:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chrisweigant.com/?p=5809#comment-22627</guid>
		<description>I love it when circumstances force politicians to show their true colors..

Seeing Republicans fall all over themselves embracing The Popular Vote would be almost as much fun as seeing Democrats fall all over themselves embracing Citizens United...  :D


Michale.....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love it when circumstances force politicians to show their true colors..</p>
<p>Seeing Republicans fall all over themselves embracing The Popular Vote would be almost as much fun as seeing Democrats fall all over themselves embracing Citizens United...  :D</p>
<p>Michale.....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
