# I admire the tenacity of republicans **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 20, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614 "2014-07-20T18:13:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 28
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/541 "2014-07-24T00:13:42Z")
I’m not really sure what’s going on here, but it’s pretty clear that **Bricker** ’s 1000:1 odds only applied to events _in the past_. That is to say, it was a tongue-in-cheek wager that he’d be guaranteed to win. He’s expressed no such surety towards any events which have _not_ happened yet, and presumably the 1000:1 odds don’t apply to those. In fact, he said as much. So he may very well be willing to bet you about the behavior of the boards after this supreme court decision, but I don’t see anything in his statements which suggest he’d be willing to do so at those ridiculous odds… Or maybe this is all a woosh. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/542 "2014-07-24T00:16:25Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I know what you were predicting with regards to the court case(s) at hand, and I don’t really give a shit what you think about it (them). I want to wager on your prediction on what will happen on these boards after the SCOTUS decision and IF you are correct about what they will be… Ahhh! My mistake. Yes, I see – you were clear about that, and I misunderstood you. My bad. So, let’s explore how well you understood THAT prediction: > [@](#): > > that everyone on the SDMB (except you, of course) will say that the decision was “because they are five racists who want Obama to fail, and all evil inhuman monsters who enjoy seeing poor people suffer.” And what I said: > [@Bricker](#): > > You all will assure each other that the law’s “intent” and “overall purpose” are more important than the plain meaning of the actual words Congress passed, and then when the Supreme Court smacks you in the face with reality, it will be because they are five racists who want Obama to fail, and all evil inhuman monsters who enjoy seeing poor people suffer. It’s true that I said “you will all…” That doesn’t translate to “everyone on the SDMB,” does it? At most, I could be understood to be speaking to everyone reading this thread. But I am going to decline the offer to bet on this proposition, because you yourself can ensure a win for yourself by remaining silent. > [@](#): > > And I like betting on possible big payout type things, so I figured if you were really sure of yourself and the words you posted, you should have no problem taking a bet at 1000:1 odds. I mean, you’re a friggin’ majorly pedantic lawyer who was in this thread giving someone shit about posting things he prolly didn’t actually mean, so I know that you mean what you say, right? Anyway, I disagree with your assessment of future happenings on this board if the decision goes the way you think it will, so I’ll put up $1000, you put up your million dollars, and we’ll see if you’re right after the SCOTUS decision comes down. What do you say? Decline. Because I was speaking hyperbolically, because your restatement of what I said was not what I said, because I don’t have a million dollars to comfortably lose, and because even if my prediction were otherwise completely accurate – which it’s not, being hyperbole – you could frustrate it by dampening your desire to say those things in order to win. But let me point out something: offering a bet and defined terms forced me to back of from my own hyperbole and acknowledge its existence… the very benefit I claim wagering produces. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/543 "2014-07-24T01:21:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Ahhh! > > My mistake. Yes, I see – you were clear about that, and I misunderstood you. > > My bad. > > So, let’s explore how well you understood THAT prediction: > > And what I said: > > It’s true that I said “you will all…” > > That doesn’t translate to “everyone on the SDMB,” does it? At most, I could be understood to be speaking to everyone reading this thread. > > But I am going to decline the offer to bet on this proposition, because you yourself can ensure a win for yourself by remaining silent. > > Decline. Because I was speaking hyperbolically, because your restatement of what I said was not what I said, because I don’t have a million dollars to comfortably lose, and because even if my prediction were otherwise completely accurate – which it’s not, being hyperbole – you could frustrate it by dampening your desire to say those things in order to win. > > But let me point out something: offering a bet and defined terms forced me to back of from my own hyperbole and acknowledge its existence… the very benefit I claim wagering produces. …aaaaaand you missed my point. You came close, but in the end, you whiffed. It’s unbelievably frustrating to deal with you sometimes, and others, it’s almost as frustrating to just watch you. This was a case of the latter, for me. I knew it would be for naught, but I spoke up anyway. /sighs resignedly ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/544 "2014-07-24T01:28:36Z")
Sorry, I’m late to the party. Can someone give me a recap and tell me if Bricker has taken a stance on this yet (as in he thinks the subsidy should or should not apply to federal exchange beneficiaries)? BTW, these lawsuits are bullshit. The intent of the law is either that all exchanges get this subsidy or the law was attempting to force states to create their own exchanges by withholding subsidies if the insurance was purchased through the federal exchange. I don’t see how any reasonable person could reach the conclusion that the federal government wanted to punish beneficiaries that were forced to go through the federal exchange because their state government was full of assholes, incompetents or just folks who thought the federal exchange would be better than anything they could come up with. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/545 "2014-07-24T01:39:20Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > This makes no sense on so many levels. > > First of all, it’s doubtful that he’ll be thirty-five years old by 01/20/2016 (typical lifespan in captivity being about 17 years anyway). This makes him ineligible to assume the office. > > Second, even if he WERE to be elected, why would a Democratic platypus want to undermine PPACA? > > Also, unless you’re on a first-name basis with him, it’s really more respectful to refer to him as _President The Platypus._ And Kennedy sort of made wearing hats unstylish, another point against Perry. But why do you assume Perry is a Democrat? He works for a quasi-military organization; odds are he’s a Republican. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/546 "2014-07-24T01:44:55Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Untrue. Are the SHOP exchanges eligible for subsidies? No. Are the SHOP exchanges subject to all those same reporting requirements? Yes. That would seem to torpedo your claim that the reporting requirements prove a subsidy was intended – right? ---
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/547 "2014-07-24T01:46:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Because the law makes an effort to define, specifically and in detail, just precisely how it goes about making insurance available to all Americans. And one of those precise definitions allows subsidies to state exchanges, but none of them allow subsidies to federal exchanges. And the result of your interpretation is that some people will not have access to affordable health insurance which **totally contradicts the fundamental purpose of the Act!** How, other than with a myopic devotion to a legalistic reading of the law does that make any sense? > [@Bricker](#): > > Tell me something, **sciurophobic**. How did you feel about the Hobby Lobby decision? > > I ask because the purpose of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was to guarantee its application in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened. The law says that, explicitly. Federal law also says the chapter about religious freedom should be “… construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter and the Constitution.” > > How did you think the Hobby Lobby case should have been decided? It was a terrible decision. To argue “corporations are persons” and “persons can be substantially burdened religiously” therefore “corporations can be substantially burdened religiously” is to twist the rules of logic and completely ignore the reason the concept of the corporation was created (i.e., to create an entity separate from, and not merely an extension, of its owners) ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/548 "2014-07-24T01:52:10Z")
Well, I daresay it was unfortunate that the RFRA was not explicitly limited to natural persons and non-profit religion-based corporations, and that something that would plausibly and promptly be corrected if the House Republicans weren’t playing their brinkmanship games. They don’t seem to realize that the point of brinkmanship is to get _closer_ to the edge than the other guy will dare, and not to be eager to jump off the cliff. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/549 "2014-07-24T02:15:02Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > This makes no sense on so many levels. > > First of all, it’s doubtful that he’ll be thirty-five years old by 01/20/2016 (typical lifespan in captivity being about 17 years anyway). This makes him ineligible to assume the office. > > Second, even if he WERE to be elected, why would a Democratic platypus want to undermine PPACA? > > Also, unless you’re on a first-name basis with him, it’s really more respectful to refer to him as _President The Platypus._ I bet you think you’re witty. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/550 "2014-07-24T02:18:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Are the SHOP exchanges eligible for subsidies? No. > > Are the SHOP exchanges subject to all those same reporting requirements? > > Yes. > > That would seem to torpedo your claim that the reporting requirements prove a subsidy was intended – right? Actually, I’m pretty sure the SHOP exchanges are eligible for subsidies, just not the same subsidy mentioned in the part of the statute being interpreted in _Halbig_. See: [Tools and calculators to help you apply](https://www.healthcare.gov/small-business-tax-credit-calculator/) In any event, are the SHOP exchanges expressly referenced in that statutory section on reporting like the federal exchanges are? Hint: No. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/551 "2014-07-24T02:22:57Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I bet you think you’re witty. Use your Google and look up “pornstar platypus” and then you’ll get it. Warning! Not for the squeamish. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/552 "2014-07-24T02:40:24Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Actually, I’m pretty sure the SHOP exchanges are eligible for subsidies, just not the same subsidy mentioned in the part of the statute being interpreted in _Halbig_. See: [Tools and calculators to help you apply](https://www.healthcare.gov/small-business-tax-credit-calculator/) > > In any event, are the SHOP exchanges expressly referenced in that statutory section on reporting like the federal exchanges are? Hint: No. But doesn’t the reporting requirement apply to SHOP exchanges? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/553 "2014-07-24T02:43:41Z")
> [@sciurophobic](#): > > And the result of your interpretation is that some people will not have access to affordable health insurance which **totally contradicts the fundamental purpose of the Act!** How, other than with a myopic devotion to a legalistic reading of the law does that make any sense? > > It was a terrible decision. To argue “corporations are persons” and “persons can be substantially burdened religiously” therefore “corporations can be substantially burdened religiously” is to twist the rules of logic and completely ignore the reason the concept of the corporation was created (i.e., to create an entity separate from, and not merely an extension, of its owners) But…but…the fundamental purpose of the RFRA was to extend broad, maximum protections! See, it seems like you aren’t willing to accept the courts’ use of the “fundamental purpose” of the law when you don’t like the law, but you are when you do. That seems dishonest to me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/554 "2014-07-24T02:46:50Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I bet you think you’re witty. He was. He was riffing on Perry the Playtus, the fun-loving monotreme who is the pet of Phineas and Ferb and has a secret identity as Agent P, an operative for the OWCA. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/555 "2014-07-24T05:26:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And Kennedy sort of made wearing hats unstylish, another point against Perry. > > But why do you assume Perry is a Democrat? He works for a quasi-military organization; odds are he’s a Republican. Well, that’s actually more about my decree that no more Republicans are to be elected to the Presidency. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/556 "2014-07-24T06:05:06Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I bet you think you’re witty. Really? Gambling? Boy, for someone who’s worried about the deterioration of everybody else’s moral fiber, you don’t seem to display much concern for your own… ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/557 "2014-07-24T11:30:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But doesn’t the reporting requirement apply to SHOP exchanges? Are you going to address my answers to your first questions? Or am I just on the witness stand? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/558 "2014-07-24T14:48:40Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Well, that’s actually more about my decree that no more Republicans are to be elected to the Presidency. Good luck with that. I recommend stocking lots of whatever booze you turn to in times of trouble for the night of November 8th, 2016. If you consume enough, it will hurt less. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/559 "2014-07-24T14:59:49Z")
For what it’s worth, I think Bricker’s prediction is wrong, which should have all of you thinking that he might be right. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/560 "2014-07-24T15:01:44Z")
It’s hard to imagine a Republican winning in 2016, especially if Hillary runs. But who knows at this point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614.md?page=27) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614.md?page=29)