Yes, he does. As long as he faithfully executes the law.

But that is moot. There is absolutely no reason why POTUS/admin thinks the individual mandate should be delayed for a year. There is no reason.

Yes, there is a reason why republicans want it delayed, because they not only win this fight, they also remove a major revenue stream for ACA and then put the mandate back in play during the election.

Why would republicans want this to happen during an election?

Because bad-faith wedge issues is all they have. They are purposefully denying people, including kids and low-income citizens, access to affordable health care. They are 10000000% willing to let millions suffer for them to score political points in 2014.

This is why the GOP needs to cripple the baggers, and then the entire republican party should jump off a fucking cliff. This country has moved decades beyond their nonsense. The corporate Democrats are as far of a right-wing group as any modern country needs.

Just so you know, the cops never knew there was a baby in the car until after the woman was shot dead. It is true that the capitol police should have wedged her in. They made a mistake and it ended with two police officers hurt from being thrown when the lady tried to ram them and get away. The mistake they made was assuming that she would behave like a rational person and get out of the car when confronted by 4 officers with drawn weapons. She didn't. And you gotta give them credit for not firing right away like most cop encounter videos these days.

Wow those are some retarded cops. They have multiple vehicles and instead of wedging her in they just get out and start shooting. Could've killed a fucking baby.

Retrain those shitty cops please.

It is not appropriate to assume the operation of this guys mind. Hey may well follow around every kid that comes into his store with a backpack due to recent thefts.

it COULD be racist, or it could also be his default behavior for anyone younger than 'x' age in his store. Or heck, maybe he trusts no one.

To presume he is racist without any understanding of the man, better context, or insight into his behavior. is itself negative for race relations. It does nothing but drive the wedge.

What do I get from this trailer?

PG-13 "death" scene. All he does is get blown up in a car, not the extremely violent and painful death of Alex Murphy from the original film goes through, the trigger in him remembering his previous life and becoming more than just an emotionless robot/cyborg. The trigger in this? His family. Yawn. They turn one of the most important scenes from the original into "boom". Also leads me to believe this'll be a PG-13 puss-fest.

Face time! The vanity of celebrities or producers that think they need to have the star's face plastered throughout the entire film (massive props for Karl Urban and the director of Dredd for sticking with the fact Dredd never shows his face). In the original, once he was RoboCop, you only ever see his face until the end. It was a good visual reminder to the audience that he was human, to reinforce that now he's reclaiming some of humanity.

It IS a powersuit. Rather than literally being a human brain in a robot as the original is, you see it's just a guy in a suit with a robot leg and arm (his bare hand and his "face in a helmet" looks ridiculous). Kinda weakens the human mind battling the robot programming aspect of the plot. Especially considering it seems he's all emo as soon as he wakes up "What have you done to me! WAH WAH!"

Where's the satire? Sure it may be hard to wedge in satirical aspects in a trailer, but I have a feeling there'll be none of it in this one. The tone is completely different and feels very generic.

Granted this is just a trailer, but it feels like this is nothing more than a generic action movie with the same name as an old beloved cult classic. I'm not against reboots, but if you plan to reboot something successful, two things need to be kept in tact: The tone and feel, and key aspects to the plot. I'd love to see more RoboCop, this isn't it.

In the book of Hagar, a woman is mentioned who "Cuts through the crowd just like a wedge."

When I was 10 we used to tunnel into sandstone cliffs near our house. I sure as hell wouldn't want my life depending on some camming device wedged into sandstone

It looks like she pulls out some picture books that had been used to wedge in the gate so it wouldn't slide down then stomps on 'em-These two are gonna be a real problem

@Kofi. It's pretty hard not to horrifically oversimplify Pakistan in only a few paragrahs. Pakistan only enjoys the third government branch of power thanks to very heavy American pressure. The ISI and military have dominated Pakistan's prior history, this years elections mark the first and only time in Pakistan's history that a civilian government there managed to serve it's full term and pass power on to another civilian government. Past governments like Bhuttos were dismissed by the military, and then saw Bhutto executed. Pakistan's road democracy is hardly secure yet either since for all the gains, Bhutto's daughter was assassinated before finishing her bid to run the exiting civilian government.

Kashmir is just the bone of contention between India and Pakistan. Within Pakistani politics the discussion is all about Balochistan and FATA. The internal divisions over those two regions was and still is being manipulated to maximum effect by Pakistan's enemies. Particularly, in FATA you have Saudi dollars building Madrassah's were Pakistan's government either won't or can't do anything about education for the tribal people. So on one hand it's giving a lifeline to a poverty stricken people, and on the other that life line is tied to a brick being thrown into the deep end of jihadist teachings and training. And when I say Saudi charities, I don't mean to suggest it's government backed. It is by all accounts privately donated monies by private Saudi citizens, the ones that give out candy to kids when parade worthy things happen.

"Plus, I can name many muslim nations that did not have spontaneous celebrations. Afghanistan for one"
You've got to be kidding on this, right?
I'd ask you maybe look at my point and counter more closely though. I was speaking to the comment that Al Qaida was wanting for supporters and didn't have peoples support prior to 9/11. I did not declare that all muslim nations were dominated by celebrations, I in fact stated that very few failed to officially condemn the attacks. I just asked how many did not see spontaneous celebrations, and yes even America saw spontaneous celebrations by the likes of Westboro nutters. My point was not paint entire muslim nations as celebrating, but that there existed elements virtually everywhere celebrating. Would you disagree on that, or is that essentially correct. As I see it, that is a clear refutation of the idea that groups like Al Qaida were starved for support prior to 9/11.

"The third point you seem to provide your own refutation. Drones etc do indeed fuel Al Queda."

Maybe read my statement more closely again. My position is that while on one hand Drones help recruitment, and on the other they hurt not only recruitment and retention, but larger scale operational planning as well. Drones have done more than drive some angry youth to join the fight against America. They have also killed a great many of the Taliban's top leadership. More importantly, they have driven a near permanent wedge between the Taliban and Pakistan's military which is a value that is hard to underestimate. IMHO the 100% sole reason for the Afghan war was to either drive that wedge between Pakistan's military and extremists, or failing that to provide a location for waging a ground war with Pakistan. I also believe there was heavy calculations that the Afghan war would prove sufficient threat and deterrent that Pakistan's leadership would make the "right" choice.

I think it's important to make a distinction here. I almost feel like talking about "Al Qaida" as the problem is Bush(jr.) league type stuff. The bigger picture is jihadist terrorism, and who cares what label it wears. The reality after 9/11 was that jihadists terrorists in the form of the Taliban, Al Qaida and many other groups had a strong foothold inside of Pakistan. They were close friends and allies with the highest ranking officials within Pakistan. After the 9/11 attacks were committed, it was decided that a line needed to be drawn between the two and it was no longer acceptable to just let Pakistan hold these jihadist terrorist groups as friends and allies. After all, how emboldened would they be if they got to launch such an attack while still maintaining their alliance with Pakistan's ISI and military. Suddenly Pakistan's military has a pseudo mercenary/spec op force that is capable of organizing attacks on mainland America large enough to kill thousands in one round. The implications of that were deemed bad and in no uncertain terms the decision was made to put an end to it.

...And Bush 'sold' it to his demographic by giving a cowboy speech declaring your either with us or against us. I'm confident though that in the most bizarre of ways, that speech was carefully phrased diplomacy giving Pakistan a flashing red message without the public embarrassment of actually naming them in the process.(or Bush stumbled onto something in blind ignorance too, I'd flip a coin on it).

This one suspect was not a threat to the entire Boston area, and did not make what amounts to Martial law without the declaration right.

Says you. You have no idea what they knew or didn’t know. How many people would he have to endanger to declare martial law (which they didn’t)? This idiotic logic you choose to use, that 1 man couldn’t possibly be a risk to ¾ million people, completely ignores that he was, as evidenced by his actions up to that point, a danger to some of those ¾ million people. I can’t believe I’m actually defending the cops, but defending the public is exactly what I believe their jobs should be (as opposed to primarily raising revenue by writing tickets), and until I see evidence to the contrary, it appears they did just that with the knowledge of the situation and the suspects that they had at the time, and until you can show different, the warrantless searches seemed reasonable.

If you think being scared is the best reason to give up your rights to privacy and freedom from search and seizure, you don't understand the USA and perhaps should move to one of those other countries that agree with you, there are many.

You don’t have a right to freedom from search and seizure. You have a right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Living in a free country gives you the right to be as ignorant as you wish about the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, but demonstrating that ignorance in a public forum such as this should be embarrassing.

Now, we appear to have a comprehension problem...I said I disagree with those claiming this was some conspiracy or even a compliance test. I did not say, and have not heard anyone else say (besides the suspects father) that this was perpetrated by the government, that's a pretty big jump there. The implication is that the police are using the fear violate people's rights thinking they'll be either be justified in their actions or at least get away with them.

“I have heard some say” is the most common and sleazy way of introducing an idea one has not a lick of evidence for, but wants to wedge into the conversation because it supports, again, a narrative he/she wants to advance. You said it and then only denied you were one who said it. You went on to truss up the notion of “compliance test”, and imply your agreement of it, with “difficult to argue against that idea”, and then revealed your conspiracy nuttery with “so they don't want to (or can't afford) to do this again”. The next paragraph’s lame appeal to patriotism and nationalist dogma betrays an authoritarian worldview. You don’t have a reading comprehension problem. You have a reality comprehension problem.

Sadly they would likely be right, thanks in large part to people like Fletch that don't understand or agree with the freedom from 'search and seizure'.

Unlike you, I understand what the Fourth Amendment says, but I'm pretty sure I also understand what you and your ilk wish it would say. Again (again), you choose to detach “unreasonable” from “search and seizure”, which, I think, demonstrates that even you realize the invalidity of your blustering, and that your primary purpose here is to advance a narrative.

{snipped lots of ridiculous, ignorant horseshit of personal beliefs about police actions and procedures he has no evidence whatsoever to support; read it above if you need a chuckle; #youtubelawyer}

Again, you appear to suggest that the police may enter your home to search for dangerous criminals at any time they choose in the name of safety because they are dangerous criminals and MAY be in your home, they are certainly in the area. That's just plain dumb and shows lack of forethought and lack of understanding of the right to be free from search and seizure, especially in your own home.

I didn’t suggest anything of the sort, although you continue on in your paragraph with the false presumption that I did. I don't even know of anybody who does suggest it. It only seems to exist in your paranoid fantasies. Do you have any point or argument that you didn’t pull out of your ass, or anything that doesn’t rely upon some other bit of info you assumed, presumed, or just fabricated? This isn’t YouTube. You can find support here, but your bullshit will be called, and criticism won’t be muted by the endless scroll of a thousand comments.

If you want to give up your rights because your a coward, move. I hear Australia is nice.

Oy... more authoritarian nuttery. Australia is awesome, btw. Bravest thing their government ever did was pass effective gun control. That we should have such courage…


Edit: Went a leeetle too far

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I get the emotional response - I have that too. But that's what a government criminal justice system *should* do, is prevent that - and use cool logic for the right rehabilitative outcome. Instead, our courts are the thin wedge of the criminal vengeance system, channelling media churned victim and bystander rage.

It is curious where Penn Jillette draws the line on protecting people's rights. On one hand, he will protect the minority-of-one in the case of a nativity scene on public property... but on the other, he will not protect the minority who is looking for a morning-after pill in an area that is so religious that pharmacists will not carry or sell it. (or the nurse from a Catholic hospital having abortion coverage)

Surely the minority's right is to be protected as well? It's unfortunate that both of these men haven't figured out that most civil rights wedge-issues come from an argument of X's rights are more important than Y's.

Dude.....Yer thinkin' too hard.
1, Give the Brits their guns back and let God sort out the rabble, more guns means less brain-dead drunks who are prone to brawl anyway because of life under the decaying crown and their Nazi fucking rich family lineage of bend-over and take it. Hehe, to all you Brits: Now they gave it away and want you to like it? Fuck them.

2. True, so what, false or meaningless, guns are tools and a wedge against the ultimate douchebags...namely, any government gone fallow.

3. No man, live where you want, when you want, and take a gun with you along with your winning fucking personality...lifes' a bitch, and sometimes you need to improvise.

4. Create your own source of infotainment with a view to not listening to ass-magnets babbling about how you should think for yourself in light of such a world-wide ass-fuck.

Now. Breath. See?? Life is better with or without guns!

The wedges you see in the zoomed out view of the cosmos are a shadow of the milky way galaxy spiral arms, these dark areas are the places we cannot see because our own galaxy obscures the view.

Everywhere else that we have mapped is looking out perpendicular to the plane of the milky ways spiral arms.

The Romney/Ryan team have a long list of disqualifying characteristics

1. Poor understanding of economics.
2. Poor understanding of foreign policy.
3. Near constant bald-faced lying.
4. They seem to be rooting for the country to fail.
5. Playing political games during a time when we face a lot of problems.
6. Silver spoons firmly wedged in anuses.
7. Both have a history of extreme hostility towards the working class.
8. Both are cultists (Mormon/Objectivist)
9. Plutocratic policy based more on dogma than pragmatism
10. Neither seem smart enough for the gig.