- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 42,744
- Reaction score
- 22,569
- Location
- Bonners Ferry ID USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Specious argument, the point was that 99% of the cars on the road have insurance it is a state MANDATE, even Stuart Butler makes the auto insurance analogy.
The GOP will not accept it NOW because a black man who is a Democrat finally got a major health insurance reform in place on a national scale that Heritage/Gingrich/Romney advocated and implimented on a state scale. Of course they reject it NOW......even though it was defended by them as late as the 2008 GOP primaries.
FFS...the ANALOGY concerns the financial responsibility for the VESSEL. If you operate a car, you are mandated to carry financial responsibility for that VESSEL. If you operate your BODY, you have a financial responsibility for operating that VESSEL.And what about the amount of americans that do not drive? Do they have car insurance? Answer: No. Why? Because you do not HAVE to drive. You can ride a bike, you can take a taxi, you can ride a train, you can ride a subway, you can even walk.
LOL....one of the original members of Heritage that used the analogy....is an "idiot". What do you call a person who has trouble understanding the analogy?Fact is millions of americans do not HAVE to drive and therefore do not HAVE to have car insurance. That is far different from having to have health insurance for simply living. And I don't care who Stuart Butler is, he's an idiot for making the analogy.
And those who attack Obama refuse to accept that it is part of the extremists motivations for attacking the President.Oh look, the race card. Why am I not surprised? Seems those that support Obama just can't help but use it against anyone that disagrees with any Obama policy. Take that crap and stow it.
If I mention that objection to a plan that conservatives not only endorsed as late as 2008 but was implemented by a GOP Gov.....is partly explained by the extreme fringes racism....that is "losing" the argument?
How is a statement of fact a reason for loss of argument?
FFS...the ANALOGY concerns the financial responsibility for the VESSEL. If you operate a car, you are mandated to carry financial responsibility for that VESSEL. If you operate your BODY, you have a financial responsibility for operating that VESSEL.
FFS...the ANALOGY concerns the financial responsibility for the VESSEL. If you operate a car, you are mandated to carry financial responsibility for that VESSEL. If you operate your BODY, you have a financial responsibility for operating that VESSEL.
LOL....one of the original members of Heritage that used the analogy....is an "idiot". What do you call a person who has trouble understanding the analogy?
And those who attack Obama refuse to accept that it is part of the extremists motivations for attacking the President.
If you are not part of that fringe, don't take offense.
The statement of fact is that some elements of the fringe are in opposition due to race. If you want to focus on that fact, that is up to you.Because it's not a "statement of fact". You played the race card because it feeds into some self-justification for you opinion. There are and were many objections to Obamacare, none of them based on the race of the POTUS.
The statement of fact is that some elements of the fringe are in opposition due to race. If you want to focus on that fact, that is up to you.
Which means nothing to the issue at discussion here and is just the generic playing of the race card to justify your position.
the analogy of having a vehicle limited to showrooms or on a private property is just fringe exceptions to the rule, it is ignoring the essence of the argument. If you want to deal in absolutes, try religion or other irrational argument.Still a failed analogy. 1: You have no choice about operating your body. Unless you know someone that CHOSE to be born? Particularly chose to be born in the US? 2: You can drive vehicles without any car insurance as much as you want on your property. Pefectly legal.
I'm sorry but mandate is an enforced term of art, if you want to make the argument that the plan created by GOP "idiots" did not specifically spell out the enforcement provisions, that is entirely up to you and is just further intellectual dishonesty.Except that the Heritage did not propose what is in Obamacare. Obamacare mandates health insurance and fines you if you don't have it. The Heritage plan was to encourage the use of health insurance via tax credits and such. There was no fine for not having it.
Again, his plans are attacked by fringe elements because he is black....and no one forced you to continue to protest against this fact so much.....me thinks.People attack Obama for many things. Just because they attack Obama does not mean that they are attacking him just because he's black. The only ones that automatically draw that conclusion are partisan hacks at best.
Some of my best friends are black too......me thinks.I attack Obama all the time. Hell, even defended him a few times. Not once have I ever done either one because he is black.
I know, you have made clear your objecting to mandated financial responsibility....whether it comes from the left or right.I've attacked him because I believe his policies suck (at best) and in the case of Obamacare I consider him to be infringing on my right to chose whether to buy a private product or not. The man is a great speaker and orator, but he sucks as a national leader.
I have no idea why you think a part of the opposition is not part of the opposition.......but you protestations continue on and on and on....me thinks.Which means nothing to the issue at discussion here and is just the generic playing of the race card to justify your position.
Next up, "we have a right to be financially irresponsible".
"You" applies to everyone.You're almost there. Note the part I bolded - YOU have that financial responsibility, NOT everyone else, NOT the government.
Is that what I said....?Yes, we do, we always have. Are you seriously advocating the governement control your individual finances to ensure you're being responsible with your money? Really?
There's nothing "ad hom" about it. You can trace Conservative's talking points to Limbaugh almost point for point the day after he airs.....
I have no idea why you think a part of the opposition is not part of the opposition.......but you protestations continue on and on and on....me thinks.
Oh no, I INTENTIONALLY included fringe element of the oppositionYou're just stung because you got caught doing it unconsciously.
It could be if you want to make that argument.....but since it doesn't concern me, I would ignore it.....me thinks.There are still fringe elements of the democrats that think the Illuminati is controlling the entire world, and vote accordingly, but that is not germaine (sic) to this discussion either.
"You" applies to everyone.
FFS, that lack of adult conversation is amazing.
Now you are conflating your "finances" point with the "financial responsibility" argument.Precisely, applies to everyone AS INDIVIDUALS. We each have the responsibility for our own finances. The government isn't responsible for your financial choices nor is anyone else on the hook to pay for the choices YOU make.
FFS, that lack of adult comprehension is amazing. :mrgreen:
Oh no, I INTENTIONALLY included fringe element of the opposition It could be if you want to make that argument.....
but since it doesn't concern me, I would ignore it.....me thinks.
Now you are conflating your "finances" point with the "financial responsibility" argument.
I don't really care to guide you through the differences of these real points, i'll just let your false argument hang on its own.
I find it amazing that you listen to Limbaugh in addition to a lack of understanding that you don't have to listen to someone to have the same position on the issues. You have no position other than Democrats right, Republicans wrong, the hell with the results that show differently
Actually....no....what I do...is when I see you and a number of other Republican apologists engaging in the same talking point in the same day....I google the talking point to see where it came from. 9 times out of 10 it was part of Limbaugh's program the day before....see.....that is how the internet does in your claims of not getting your talking points from the right-wing propogandists. A Good example....just recently Limbaugh was talking of "low information voters"....the next day....you must have used that term 10 times in your posts.....so in other words Con....you aren't fooling anyone.
I understand that straw is a regular and large part of you posting diet...but....it is not to my taste.Big boy eyes failure once again. Let's see if I got it, your current dodge is claiming that taking "financial responsibility" is not the same as having "responsibility for our own finances". Interesting, but still a dodge to avoid having to say you went a tad too far.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?