Regulation By The Pound

BFGcd8oCUAEEc7k

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell posted on Twitter yesterday this picture of printed-out Obamacare regulations to date:


“This is over 20,000 pages and measures 7′ 2.5″,” writes Warner Todd Huston. “These are all the Obamacare regulations published in the Federal Register up through last week. Then last Friday they added another 828 pages.”

But remember, this is going to make health insurance and health care cheaper and affordable. Because that’s what reams and reams of government regulation always accomplishes, right? Maybe not so much. According to the Associated Press, applying for health insurance through Obamacare is going to be about as fun and easy as doing your income taxes:

The government’s draft application runs 15 pages for a three-person family. An outline of the online version has 21 steps, some with additional questions.

Seven months before the Oct. 1 start of enrollment season for millions of uninsured Americans, the idea that getting health insurance could be as easy as shopping online at Amazon or Travelocity is starting to look like wishful thinking.

At least three major federal agencies, including the IRS, will scrutinize your application. …

“When you combine those two processes, it is enormously time consuming and complex,” added Pollack. He’s calling for the government to simplify the form and, more important, for an army of counselors to help uninsured people navigate the new system. It’s unclear who would pay for these navigators.

Drafts of the paper application and a 60-page description of the online version were quietly posted online by the Health and Human Services Department, seeking feedback from industry and consumer groups. Those materials, along with a recent HHS presentation to insurers, run counter to the vision of simplicity promoted by administration officials.

I always chuckle when I see Obamacare and the exchanges it creates compared to free-market examples like Amazon or Travelocity. Because the government didn’t have to create Amazon or Travelocity. Those businesses were created by private investors and innovators providing a service to meet a demand.

The government can’t create markets (look no further than the failed attempts to push ethanol, solar and wind into the energy markets). The government can only regulate them.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Anon

    Nice try hack. The Federal Registrar isn’t regulations, it’s mostly findings from public comments on proposed rules, e.g. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/03/11/2013-04954/patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act-establishment-of-the-multi-state-plan-program-for-the#h-4

    Unless of course you want the government to ignore the public when making rules, the length should considered a positive.

    If you wanted actual rules, you’d have to look at the Code of Federal Regulations.

    • Waski_the_Squirrel

      Does name calling help you to make your point?

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        He’s a hackophiliak.

        • mickey_moussaoui

          He’s anal…
          (in Freudian psychoanalysis) Relating to or denoting a stage of infantile psychosexual development supposedly preoccupied with the anus…

      • Anon

        I didn’t reply to your comment initially so you could see me being called names. Go make the same somment to flamemeiste and mickey moussaoui and you’ll have credibility.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Sigh…

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Register#Contents

      For being most of the time, you certainly have a sort of belligerent arrogance about you.

      • Anon

        Sigh…

        “Once an agency decides that a regulatory action is necessary or appropriate, it develops and typically publishes a proposed rule in the Federal Register, soliciting comments from the public on the regulatory proposal. After the agency considers this public feedback and makes changes where appropriate, it then publishes a final rule in the Federal Register with a specific date upon which the rule becomes effective and enforceable. In issuing a final rule, the agency must describe and respond to the public comments it received.” http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/faq.jsp

        If you’d even bother to click the Federal Register link about the ACA, almost certainly part of the pile in McConnell’s picture, you’d see it was almost entirely responses to public comments and not actual regulation.

        You certainly have a sort of belligerent ignorance about you.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          So, what you’re admitting is that final rules are printed in the federal register.

          Thanks.

          • Anon

            So, what you’re admitting is that your purposely ignoring the fact that its almost entirely not regulation but instead explanations and responses to public concerns.

            Thanks.

            If it’s final rules, than please find the final rule/regulation in this ACA Federal Register link: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/03/11/2013-04954/patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act-establishment-of-the-multi-state-plan-program-for-the#h-4

            Or don’t you dare risk finding out you’re wrong and its mostly responses to public comments?

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Nobody is saying that the federal register doesn’t include public comments.

            You set up that straw man.

            What is being said, accurately, is that the stack of papers in the picture is a print out of the final regulations from the federal register.

          • Anon

            “Nobody is saying that the federal register doesn’t include public comments.”

            Too bad that’s what you were arguing when you wrote, “The Federal Register is where finalized regulations are printed” and linked to the wikipedia page about the contents of the Federal Register to prove me wrong.

            Fact is the Federal Register contains those public comments, explanations, and responses and not only the final rules, otherwise it’d just be duplicative of the Code of Federal Regulations.

          • Guest

            You knew most people would assume these are the actual regulations themselves of the affordable care act. Anons comments are true. Why do you need to deceive to get your message across?

          • Guest

            And I should correct myself maybe you just didn’t understand what you were talking about when you put this article on the web page.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            But, they are the actual regulations.

            I’m not deceiving anyone,

          • Anon

            Except you can’t back up that argument besides blind faith in McConell, whose claim that he received 828 new pages on Friday doesn’t add up unless you include non regulatory materials. So much for critical analysis and independent thought. I’m embarrassed for you, hack.

          • Anon

            What a surprise, Rob disappears after being proven completely wrong. What a hack!

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            I haven’t disappeared, and I’m not wrong.

            The federal register, in addition to public comments, has finalized regulations.

            That’s what’s in the picture.

            Now you’ll say something boring about me being a hack because you don’t like that I’m right.

            Yawn.

          • Anon

            You’re a hack because you can’t back up your argument besides blind faith in Mitch McConnell.

            Hope you’re happy, becaue now even Obama says something that can’t be backed up with actual evidence, you’ll just have to take his word for it like you do for Mitch McConnell now.

            Thanks hack, it was gratifying to see how willfully ignorant you are!

          • Onslaught1066

            You’re a hack because you can’t back up your argument

            Sez the rumor monger.

          • Anon

            Nothought1066 yet again cannot articulate why anything I said is opinion (let alone wrong) beyond his bare assertion. Thanks for admitting you have nothing to counter my argument, Nothought1066!

            Oh, Onslaught1066, you’re such a sh@#thead!

          • Onslaught1066

            Sez the rumor monger.

          • Anon

            Thanks again for admitting you have nothing to counter my argument, Nothought1066!

            Oh, Onslaught1066, you’re such a sh@#thead!

          • Onslaught1066

            In your opinion, of course.

          • Anon

            Once again, Nothought1066 completely fails to explain how anything I said is an opinion beyond his bare assertion, much less why it’s wrong even if it is an opinion.

            Oh, Onslaught1066, you’re such a sh@#thead!

          • Onslaught1066

            That would be in your uninformed opinion, right?

          • Anon

            Once more, Nothought1066 completely fails to explain how anything I said is an opinion beyond his bare assertion, much less why it’s wrong even if it is an opinion.

            Oh, Onslaught1066, you’re such a sh@#thead!

          • Onslaught1066

            In your opinion, yes?

          • Anon

            Once more, Nothought1066 completely fails to explain how anything I said is an opinion beyond his bare assertion, much less why it’s wrong even if it is an opinion.

            Oh, Onslaught1066, you’re such a sh@#thead!

          • Onslaught1066

            In your opinion, right?

          • Anon

            Once more, Nothought1066 completely fails to explain how anything I said is an opinion beyond his bare assertion, much less why it’s wrong even if it is an opinion.

            Oh, Onslaught1066, you’re such a sh@#thead!

          • Onslaught1066

            In your opinion, yes?

          • Anon

            Once more, Nothought1066 completely fails to explain how anything I said is an opinion beyond his bare assertion, much less why it’s wrong even if it is an opinion.

            Oh, Onslaught1066, you’re such a sh@#thead!

          • Onslaught1066

            en su opinión, por supuesto

          • Anon

            Once more, Nothought1066 completely fails to explain how anything I said is an opinion beyond his bare assertion, much less why it’s wrong even if it is an opinion.

            Oh, Onslaught1066, you’re such a sh@#thead!

          • Onslaught1066

            في رأيك، وبطبيعة الحال

          • Anon

            Yet more, Nothought1066 completely fails to explain how anything I said is an opinion beyond his bare assertion, much less why it’s wrong even if it is an opinion.

            Oh, Onslaught1066, you’re such a sh@#thead!

          • Onslaught1066

            i din udtalelse, selvfølgelig

          • Anon

            Once more, Nothought1066 completely fails to explain how anything I said is an opinion beyond his bare assertion, much less why it’s wrong even if it is an opinion.

            Oh, Onslaught1066, you’re such a sh@#thead!

          • Anon

            Yet again, Nothought1066 completely fails to explain how anything I said is an opinion beyond his bare assertion, much less why it’s wrong even if it is an opinion.

            Oh, Onslaught1066, you’re such a sh@#thead!

          • two_amber_lamps

            Oh how cute! Wook at da widdle Gusty decided to use Anon today! But tomorrow you will be guest! Or will it be thetruth? Or pitytal? What about onslaught1067?

            That’s the joy of having these polite little fireside chats with Gusty… you never know which of his sockpuppets you’re conversing with.

          • Anon

            Still nothing but hate and insults from you. What a pathetic life, I feel bad for you.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Interesting. You deem TRUTH to be “hate” and “insults.”

            No wonder you can’t have a rational conversation.

            What does “guest” have to say on the topic? Or “thetruth” for that matter? How about “5 year old girl who comments on MN area hockey blogs?”

          • Anon

            Still nothing but hate and insults from you, what a sad life. I feel bad for you.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Glad you concur!

          • Anon

            Yes, you do have a sad life for posting nothing but hate and insults and should be pitied. Glad you agree with that!

          • two_amber_lamps

            Anon: TRUTH = “hate” and “insults”

            Yes Anon/guest/5 year old hockey blog commenter-imposter. We got that.

          • Anon

            Two amber lamps = hate and insults. Yes, you have a pathetic life. We got that and feel bad for you.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Yes you have a knack for the ad nauseum…

            We understand Anon believes TRUTH = “hate” and “insults.”

            Now respond with your witless blather… I COMMAND THEE!

          • Anon

            If you’re not purely hate and insults, identify any post of yours in this thread that was not solely a personal insult directed at me and added substantively to the issue at hand, namely McConnell’s picture.

          • two_amber_lamps

            I don’t have to do anything to discredit you Comrade 5 year old girl who posts on hockey blogs… you do a good job of that on your own.

            Now respond with some other bit of trivial nonsense… I COMMAND THEE!

            http://www.petside.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/fullsize_article/10080002.jpg

          • Anon

            What a non-surprise, you couldn’t find anything; even you couldn’t find anything to show you’re nothing but hate and insults. What a sad life, I feel bad for you.

          • two_amber_lamps

            Good boy! Who says you can’t be trained?

            Say something equally inane and repetitive! I command thee!

            http://www.profimedia.rs/photo/dog-jumping-through-a-hula-hoop/profimedia-0006773973.jpg

          • Anon

            Give more evidence that you post nothing but hate and insults. I command you.

            What a pathetic life, I fee bad for you.

          • two_amber_lamps

            I was just warning everyone of your insatiable appetite to suck dick as evidenced by a google search link,

            Watch this! A feat of mystical mind manipulation…. I can get Anon/guest/thetruth to post inane, inconsequential blather upon command.

            Baseless accusations at Neiman that he’s homosexual? Baseless as every other post you’ve ever made in your miserable life.

            Jump thru the hoop little Anon/guest/thetruth/5yearoldgirlwhopostsonMNhockeyblogs….

            Bark… bark I say!

          • Anon

            Thanks two amber lamps for posting nothing but hate and insults and confirming my allegations. Now post more evidence that you post nothing but hate and insults. I command you.

            What a sad life you have, I fee bad for you.

          • two_amber_lamps
          • Anon

            Ta da!

            Good b*tch!

            No post nothing but hate and insults to again prove my point that you have a pathetic life comprised solely of posting hate and insults!

          • two_amber_lamps

            And as you concurred with earlier TRUTH = “hate and insults”

            You so silly Anon/guest/5yearoldgirlwhopostsonMNareahockeyblogs imposter!

            Tell ya what… let’s play social experiment, post something inane and asinine again!

          • Anon

            As you concurred early, you have a pathetic life consisting of posting nothing but hate and insults.

            You so silly, pathetic loser!

            Tell ya what… “let’s (sic) play social experiment,” post nothing but hate and insults again!

          • two_amber_lamps

            And as you concurred with earlier TRUTH = “hate and insults”

            You so silly Anon/guest/5yearoldgirlwhopostsonMNareahockeyblogs imposter!

            Post something inane and asinine again!

          • Anon

            As you concurred early, you have a pathetic life consisting of posting nothing but hate and insults.

            Post only hate and insults one more to prove how pathetic your life is again!

          • two_amber_lamps

            And as you concurred with earlier TRUTH = “hate and insults”

            You so silly Anon/guest/5yearoldgirlwhopostsonMNareahockeyblogs imposter!

            Post something inane and asinine again!!

          • Anon

            As you concurred early, you have a pathetic life consisting of posting nothing but hate and insults; You’ve repeatedly demonstrated that now.

            Post only hate and insults one more to prove how pathetic your life is again!

          • two_amber_lamps

            Thank you for participating in our study. Based on your reactions to basic stimulus/reaction responses we’ve tabulated your cognitive and intellectual capabilities….

            Congratulations! You scored that of a robot wind-up toy!

            http://japgar.smugmug.com/Other/Misc-2010/i-kvjQX39/0/L/nik20100225DSC_8190-L.jpg

            Thanks again for your contribution to science!

          • Hal801

            Now, that was funny!

          • Anon

            Thank you for posting nothing but hate and insults and proving how pathetic your life is….

            Congratuslations! You scored that of Jenkins!

            http://www.omgot.org/forums/album/RicsGhost/matt_Avatar.JPG

            Thanks again for your making all us feeling better for your truly pathetic life!

          • Neiman

            Do not waste much time with Anon, he is an atheist, a hate monger, he sows seeds of division and strife and refuses to acknowledge direct facts that counter his beliefs. He is part of the unholy trinity plus one: Gay Bob, Ellinas, Hannitized and and now Anon, a person that is in all probability a sock puppet for one of the other three ignoramuses.

          • Anon

            It’s okay Neiman, since you have nothing to factually back up your claims so it’s only logical that you’d have to resort to personal attacks like Two amber lamps.

          • Neiman

            I gave you facts, but you refused to accept them. It was not a personal attack, which you have launched against me, I warned a fellow Christian of the evil spirits within you that he might avoid the darts of the devil through you. You are a hater in the first degree – you hate Christ and all Christians.

          • Anon

            Giving a google search isn’t evidence of anything Nieman, unless you want to accept the facts behind the google search I provided. If you want to differentiate warnings others with personal attacks, well than I was just warning everyone of your insatiable appetite to suck dick as evidenced by a google search link, which is apparently sufficient evidence to support an argument under Neiman’s logic.

          • Neiman

            So at last you are out of the closet here at SAB and confessing your homosexuality? Any child porn at home?

          • Anon

            Not being a bigot like Neiman, I don’t care if someone labels me as a homosexual any more than I care if they call me brown haired.

            All I’m doing is pointing out that by Neiman own logic of argument that a google search is somehow valid evidence, since I posted a google search that he sucks dick, there is therefore evidence by Neiman’s own reason he does suck dick.

          • Neiman

            It has not escaped my notice that you speak of me by speaking not to me directly, but to others, trying to enlist them in your hate campaign against me. Petty and childish, but in the highest liberal tradition.

            Tell me is being a bigot always bad? Aren’t you bigoted against child molesters? If so then you are a bigot too! So, it is not bigotry that is bad in your dark liberal heart, it is bigotry against those things you believe in that you hate, right?

            I notice you love talking about performing oral sex, is that a hobby of yours? Sodomy on your menu as well?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Old Pal, do you know just how hilariously hypocritical your last comment is?

            Please recall the years you wrote to me indirectly.

            You’re the bestest commenter here, Old Pal!

          • Neiman

            Better than being you, a demon possessed pathological lying, psycho-sexual cyber-stalker and lying piece of filth sub-human. Every time you go on SAB the first thing you do is you desperately search for my avatar so you can whack off reading my comments, don’t you Gay Bob?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            I notice you love talking about weird sex, is that a hobby of yours? Sodomy on your menu as well?

          • Anon

            And there we have it: Neiman comes to the defense of bigotry.

          • Neiman

            Ah, so you are not bigoted against child molesters, interesting. I’ll be Gay Bob is glad to hear that!

          • Anon

            “Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats other people with hatred, contempt, and intolerance on the basis of a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity,national origin, religion, language, socioeconomic status, or other status.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

            Don’t see child molesters on their, sorry defender of bigotry Neiman.

          • Onslaught1066

            Κατά τη γνώμη σας, φυσικά

            BTW σύνταξη σας είναι να πάρει λίγο τραχιά γύρω από τις άκρες και πάλι

          • Neiman

            So, you admit you are not bigoted against child molesters, interesting. You refuse to treat child molesters with hatred or intolerance of their crimes against children, you will next, as you do for gays now, defend their right to molest children. I am sure Gay Bob is happy to hear that.

          • Anon

            You can’t be bigoted against child molestors, it’s outside the scope the meaning of the word, Neiman. Sexual orientation is within it though, defender of bigotry Neiman.

          • Neiman

            That is only your ignorant opinion, not fact. Bigotry can apply to anything wherein one is intolerant and passionately opposed to anything. So, we know you refuse any bigotry, any intolerance of child molestation, which as I have said, is good news to gay Bob and your liberal pals.

          • Anon

            My “ignorant opinion” has a citation, your ignorant opinion has no basis but your ignorant mind. Bigotry does not apply to anything; just because one opposes murders does not mean one is bigoted against murderers because bigotry conotates an unjust opposition.

            Since you are apparently learning disabled, here’s Webster’s dictionary for English learners entry for bigotry:
            “a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.”

            Note the use of “unfair” defender of bigotry Nieman, there’s numerous fair reasons one can condemn child molestation, but all you provided to justify your “unfair dislike” of homosexuals is a google search for “case studies showing the negative consequences of gay marriage.”

          • Neiman

            Please note that Anon still refuses to be bigoted against child molestation, makes one wonder why, doesn’t it? Maybe it hits too close to home? Hmmm? Interesting, no?

            For your education, which is sorely lacking, it is thought that “bigot,” is derived from the German “bei Gott,” or “by God.” It is believed it was from an occasion when a man refused to bend down a kiss the feet of a king, by saying, “bei Gott, I shall not bow down to him.” It is a refusal to bow to others, as I refuse to submit or bow down to popular atheist opinions about homosexuality not being a sin. It is, “By God’s Name I will not agree with you, rather I will submit only to Him.”

            Over time it has come to mean something else, twisted by liberal academics to represent ignorant intolerance of those evil things they demand be tolerated. If you have string passionate objections to child molestation, you would be wholly intolerant (bigoted) of child molesters.

          • Anon

            What’s amusing is that by trying to group child molesters into groups that can fall within the scope of bigotry, Neiman is implictly saying that such derison is unfair, which is the definition of bigotry. So not only is Neiman a defender bigotry he is also arguing that child molesters are unfairly persecuted!

            Why do you support child molestation and think their disfavor is unfair, Neiman? It is your position that their disfavor amounts to bigotry!

          • Neiman

            That is a lie, so you must be a liberal. I never suggested it was unfair to be bigoted against them, as bigotry is not always a negative as you and your friend suggest. One can be bigoted against things that should not be tolerated, such as child molestation and thus passionately oppose that most foul crime.

            If you had the brains of a 5-year-old, you would have read the root of the word bigotry above, which was “By God I will not bow down to anyone, but will keep my own beliefs and counsel.” It was you damnable liberals that twisted it to mean this: “If you oppose anything we liberals believe in you are an intolerant bigot and in time we”ll make your opposition to everything we believe in a crime,” as you are now doing with homosexuality. Exactly as your role models and fellow socialist travelers in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, The People’s Republic of China and Cuba have done, you know, criminalize everything that opposes you.

            As I have made it clear I am passionately against child molestation, bigoted in fact against them, so you are still a lying damned liberal. The thing is pea brain, I argued against the liberal definition of bigotry, thus stating most clearly that to be intolerant of homosexuality to the point of bigotry is no fault, it is what any decent man would do, but your being a liberal, of course you cannot be a decent man.

          • Anon

            No Neiman, you cannot just make up definitions. It is not possible to to be bigoted against things that should not be tolerated. A bigot “is a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.” http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/bigot If there is a reason something cannot be tolerated, it is not unfair to dislike like it, and therefore does not fall within the definition of bigotry.You are conflating bigotry with simple dislike, while bigotry is an unfair dislike of something.

            If Neiman truly thinks it is possible that bigotry can encompass child molestation, it means he thinks it is possibly to “strongly and unfairly dislike” them by definition. So Neiman why do you think it is unfair to dislike child molesters? Why are you so adamant that they are unfairly disliked?

          • Neiman

            (a) Who gets to decide what is unfair in the area of extreme dislike, liberals, atheists, you? A bit unfair don’t you think? It is subjective and your definition is no better than people of faith, just because you are an intolerant bigot towards them.

            (b) What is the back ground?
            ” Bigots may have more in common with God than one might
            think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to
            kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant “an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.” Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.”

            It was derived as an expression of hatred against people of faith, at first applied mainly to Roman Catholics, 1590s, “sanctimonious person, religious hypocrite,” from French bigot.

            So, people like you and gays, bigoted towards Christ and His Church, use that word to denigrate people of faith and even today is applied to mean anyone of faith that opposes any liberal belief or segment of society is thus bigoted and dismissed by you simple minded folk.

            (c) You keep repeating the lie that I think child molesters are unfairly disliked, it is a conscious lie by you, but what can you expect from an atheist and a liberal?

          • Anon

            Neiman contends that those who dislike child molesters are bigoted. Bigotry is defined as the unfair dislike of another. Reworded, Niemen believes molestors are unfairly disliked.

            Simply put, bigotry and general opposition and disfavor are NOT synonymous as you are arguing. For example, a person who hates another simply because of their skin color is entirely different from a person who hates another because they murder. Only the later group is unfairly disliked, and therefore the term bigotry applies only to that category.

            If Niemen thinks those who dislike child molesters are bigoted, it is not a lie that he think they are unfairly disliked because bigotry is defined as the unfair dislike of another group.

          • Anon

            That should be worded as only the former group is unfairly disliked in the second paragraph.

          • Neiman

            Every word above is a lie and if we were face to face, I would make you back it up like a man. I have explained this in every possible way and denied that lie several times, that you keep repeating it makes you a most damnable liar and a child of hell.

            I said it was a positive sort of bigotry to be intolerant of child molesters, but you know that – you are just a filthy damn liar. I know, you must be Gay Bob or his male girl firend..

          • Anon

            Be sure to inform Webster’s dictionary that they are “damnable liars and child of hell” too, since it’s their definition of bigotry I’ve been using. http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/bigot

            You know you’ve beaten Niemen when he starts arguing that you are gay, going to hell, from hell, etc. as his primary argument.

          • Neiman

            I have totally disproven that definition and shown you to be an habitual liar. So, my words were not my primary argument, but an apt description of your loathsome character and lack of manhood.

          • Anon

            Nieman hasn’t disproven anything, except for his reasonableness. That’s been soundly disproven. It doesn’t get much authoritative than Webster’s dictionary, Nieman.

            Look at the following examples:

            Someone hates another because they’re black.
            Someone hates another because they’re female.
            Someone hates another because they’re a child molester.

            Only in the first two cases is the hatred unfair because being black and female are in no way reasonable justifications another can hate another; being black or female are innocent or deserving of dislike. The term bigotry therefore applies. If you think the third example is also bigotry, it means you think, as with the black and female example, the child molester is subject to unjustified hatred. I myself don’t think it is unfair to dislike child molesters, they’ve harmed children. Niemen, however, thinks the term bigotry applies, and per the definition of bigotry, thinks they’re dislike is unfair and justified. So again Niemen, since you contend those who dislike molesters are bigoted, why do you think their dislike is unfair and unjustified?

          • Neiman

            Keep lying filth – you are only proving my every word about your loathsome, dishonest, vile, demonic character.

          • Anon

            When does quoting Webster’s makes someone lying filth, loathsome, dishonest, vile, and demonic?

            Apparently, the answer is when it proves Neiman wrong.

          • Neiman

            When you keep lying and say I defend child molesters!

          • Anon

            If you think people who dislike molesters are bigoted, you are defending them by definition.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            My stars, Old Pal, but that wasn’t very Christ like was it?

          • Neiman

            Since you are a proven pathological lying, psycho-sexual, cyber-stalker and admitted non-Christian, what would you know about Christianity? Nothing.

          • Anon

            Could you kindly direct us to where in the Bible Christ calls anyone a psycho-sexual, cyber-stalker, male girl friend, or filthy damn liar, etc then, Niemen?

          • Neiman

            Right after you confess your sins and accept Jesus as your Savior and Lord and stop lying.

          • Anon

            How unsurprising, Niemen once again fails.

          • Neiman

            Yes, I failed to get you to confess you are a sinner worthy of hell and accept Jesus as your Savior. It is your choice as will be your everlasting conscious torment for that terrible decision.

            Now it is late, keep convincing yourself you are not the filth we all know you to be, but by yourself, you bore me.

          • Anon

            No, you failed to direct us to where Christ calls anyone anyonea psycho-sexual, cyber-stalker, male girl friend, or filthy damn liar, vile, loathsome, etc.

            What a great representative of the Church. Christ will surely be pleased with your insults. Yes, we all remember the part of the Bible where instead of turning the other cheek, Christ calls someone a psycho-sexual stalker.

  • mickey_moussaoui

    Nice dodge anus(Anon),

    The Federal Register (the daily newspaper of the Federal government) is a legal newspaper published every business day by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    The Federal Register contains:

    Federal Agency Regulations

    Proposed Rules and Public Notices

    Executive Orders

    Proclamations

    Other Presidential Documents

    http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/the-federal-register/about.html

    In laymen terms: It’s an official news source

    • Anon

      Nice try moron, it’s stil not the official code, although I appreciate that you actually spent two seconds trying to google something to prove me wrong. The Code of Federal Regulations is the actual law, not the Federal Registrar, which purpose is to inform the public, explain agency actions, and respond to public input on proposed rules.

      “Once an agency decides that a regulatory action is necessary or appropriate, it develops and typically publishes a proposed rule in the Federal Register, soliciting comments from the public on the regulatory proposal. After the agency considers this public feedback and makes changes where appropriate, it then publishes a final rule in the Federal Register with a specific date upon which the rule becomes effective and enforceable. In issuing a final rule, the agency must describe and respond to the public comments it received.”
      http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/faq.jsp

      If you’d even bothered to click on the example ACA link I gave initially, you’d have seen that it was almost entirely the agency responding to public feedback on a proposed rule. But apparently anything that requires more than three seconds of reading to too complex for you.

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        So, your point is what exactly?

        What is in the picture is a print out of all the final Obamacare rules so far from the federal register. And it’s 20,000+ pages.

        You apparently think that’s ok?

        Seriously, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

        • Camburn

          Rob: Actually, on this one Aron is correct. If you had ever followed a chemical registration process you would understand this.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Nope, he’s not correct at all.

            Sorry. The Federal Register is where finalized regulations are printed. According to Senator McConnell, that monstrous pile of paper is the finalized regulations (so far) for Obamacare from the register.

          • Anon

            No, your absolutely wrong. The Code of Federal Regulations is where finalized regulations are printed. Some of those those regulations might be included in the Federal Register, but its mostly other materials like public notices, responses to public concerns, etc. Thanks for doubling down on your mistake, if proves how willfully ignorant you are.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Uh, that’s not when you yourself copy/pasted above.

            If you’re going to be a pedant, you have to actually be right.

          • Anon

            Good thing I am right than.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            But you’re not. You’re really, really not.

            You’re pointing out that the federal register includes responses to public comment. You’re absolutely right about that. What you’re not right about is that the print out above includes the comments.

          • Anon

            He said they added 828 pages last Friday and the only way to get to that number is by including the full publication of the Federal Registers late last week to even get close that number, public comments included.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            No, that’s not the only way to add 828 pages, sorry.

          • Anon

            Yes, it is hack. Please tell me how they got to t 828 without including extraneous, non-regulatory material then. I really want to see you prove this mathematical impossibility.

            Since you’re so lazy and apparently can’t be bothered to back up your argument without minimal effort, Here’s the links to all the Feder Registers from last week.

            http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-03-04/pdf/FR-2013-03-04.pdf

            http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-03-05/pdf/FR-2013-03-05.pdf

            http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-03-06/pdf/FR-2013-03-06.pdf

            http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-03-07/pdf/FR-2013-03-07.pdf

            http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-03-08/pdf/FR-2013-03-08.pdf

          • mickey_moussaoui

            Anus,you are splitting hairs here with an anal semantic argument. Could you get any more nerdy?

          • Anon

            Thanks for resorting only to ad hominem attacks and conceding you have nothing to undermine my argument, moron!

        • Anon

          The point is that almost none of that is actual regulation, stupid hack.

          Go back and look at the link in my original post, 99% of it is simply responses to posts from the public. If you wanted to post actual regulations, you’d print out the actual rules from the Code of Federal Regulations.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            No, it is in fact actual regulation.

            But keep calling everybody names. You’re so persuasive.

          • Anon

            No, it is not in fact actual regulation, as demonstrated by this Federal Register Link which is entirely responses to public comments. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/03/11/2013-04954/patient-protection-and-affordable-care-act-establishment-of-the-multi-state-plan-program-for-the#h-4

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            McConnell’s tweet says it’s regulations, not public comments.

            That the federal register contains responses to public comments as well as final regulations doesn’t mean that the pile of documents we’re seeing contains both.

            Again, if you’re going to be pedantic, you have to be right first.

          • Anon

            Except he was including public comments, sorry to disappoint you hack. He said they added 828 pages last Friday and the only way to get to that number is by including the full publication of the Federal Registers late last week to even get close that number, public comments included.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            the point is on your head

      • mickey_moussaoui

        dumdum, they report the official code as it is written. You are clueless

        • Anon

          You are clueless, I gave you a link to Federal Register that was only public comments. Thanks for demonstrating that your ignorance is totally voluntary and how stupid conservatives really are!

  • http://randysroundtable.blogspot.com/ Randy G

    I guess sh*t can be piled that high…

  • sbark

    What do Dem’cats call 20,000 pages of ObamaCare regs…………a nice little start

  • SusanBeehler

    Where are the binders of our state rules?

    • Onslaught1066

      If they were up your fat ass, you’d know.

      Are you and AV an item or an exhibit?

Top