Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 146
  1. #41
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF,CA
    Posts
    2,133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    So you are saying that the whether or not an action is covered by the U.S. Constitution is related to the number of other nations implementing a similar policy?
    No. Social commentary in the form of a meme mocking the absurd, taking-away-our-freedom perspective of healthcare reform. Clive knew that, but chose to respond with the old play dumb/sarcasm/create a straw man routine. Clearly, Sudden Clarity Clarence struck a nerve!

  2. #42
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Booger, in a handful of posts you have represented all the nastiness and bigotry of the Left. You cannot engage in ideas without expressing extreme and hateful language. That is why I don't debate you and why I wont. I experience enough of that sort of bigotry from liberals in real life.
    Last edited by chadn737; June 29th, 2012 at 08:17 AM.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  3. #43
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Quote Originally Posted by Booger
    Once again, you mischaracterize public sentiment on the act. To wit:

    Gallup last assessed the healthcare law in February, when Americans essentially were evenly split in their views; 45% said its passage by Congress was a good thing, while 44% said it was a bad thing. Americans were slightly more positive in March 2010, just after the law passed, when 49% said passing the healthcare law was a good thing, and 40% said it had been a bad thing.

    Clearly, the act garners plurality support, according to Gallup.


    Yeah, a 1% approval margin is really a "clear plurality". What were the margins of error on those polls, by the way?

    And as far as votes not reflecting the will of the people, the "people" comprise a much broader group than white, Midwest conservative reactionaries regurgitating misguided and intellectually bereft abursidites about jamming stuff down their fat, lazy gullets, cornfed to them by Fox, Rush and the Koch boys.
    lol. You're not even pretending not to be a racist, now.

    Besides, if chad was so worried about laws not reflecting the will of the people, I would expect him to be flying the rainbow flag and taking on anti-gay marriage nutjobs. But that won't happen. Why? Because he's just a sore loser, as argued.
    ...uh, what? Do you even know what chad's position is on same-sex marriage (which is actually unpopular in most states where it has been voted on, IIRC--though public opinion may have shifted in those states since those votes)?

    And why are you bringing this up here? If chad's being a hypocrite by opposing this but not supporting SSM, aren't you being a hypocrite by supporting SSM but not opposing this? Hamstrung yourself here...


    ---------- Post added at 09:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:51 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Booger View Post
    No. Social commentary in the form of a meme mocking the absurd, taking-away-our-freedom perspective of healthcare reform. Clive knew that, but chose to respond with the old play dumb/sarcasm/create a straw man routine. Clearly, Sudden Clarity Clarence struck a nerve!
    But this isn't a debate about whether universal healthcare is good policy. This is about the Supreme Court deciding on the constitutionality of this particular implementation of 'universal health care' (except that it isn't about "care" at all, it's about "insurance"--i.e., health finance). Pointing out that lots of other Western democracies have universal health care has literally nothing to do with whether the Supreme Court's decision was correct.


    You're just pointing it out to try to score rhetorical points. Liberals tend to be very results-oriented when it comes to Supreme Court decisions; if it results in policies that you prefer, it was Rightly Decided (e.g., the current decision), and if it results in policies that you don't prefer, it was Wrongly Decided by an Evil Cabal of Ignorant Conservatives (e.g. Citizens United). What the Constitution actually says doesn't really figure in to this equation. Which is why you don't want to talk about the Constitution, you just want to make dumb cable-news rhetorical jabs.
    Last edited by Squatch347; June 29th, 2012 at 08:08 AM. Reason: Hashtag fix
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  4. #44
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF,CA
    Posts
    2,133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    He does no such thing and you know it. He was referring to the massively partisan nature of the passage of this bill. We aren't a tyranny of the majority Booger. Further, going all the way back to March 2010 we find that a strong majority favored repealing the bill, a percentage that has never been statistically significantly lower. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ealth_care_law
    Lolz. You cite your poll, I cite mine. But I would point out the following:

    In 2010, Nate Silver of the New York Times blog FiveThirtyEight wrote the article “Is Rasmussen Reports biased?”, in which he mostly defended Rasmussen from allegations of bias.[25] However, by later in the year, Rasmussen's polling results diverged notably from other mainstream pollsters, which Silver labeled a "house effect".[26] He went on to explore other factors which may have explained the effect such as the use of a likely voter model,[27] and claimed that Rasmussen conducted its polls in a way that excluded the majority of the population from answering.[28] Silver also criticized Rasmussen for often only polling races months before the election, which prevented them from having polls just before the election that could be assessed for accuracy. He wrote that he was “looking at appropriate ways to punish pollsters” like Rasmussen in his pollster rating models who don’t poll in the final days before an election.[29]

    After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model.[30] He singled out as an example the Hawaii Senate race, in which Rasmussen, in a poll completed three weeks before the election, showed incumbent Daniel Inouye only 13 points ahead, whereas in actuality he won by a 53% margin[31] – a difference of 40 points from Rasmussen's poll, or "the largest error ever recorded in a general election in FiveThirtyEight’s database, which includes all polls conducted since 1998".

    Hmmm. I don't recall gallup's objectivity being questioned...

    ---------- Post added at 08:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Yeah, a 1% approval margin is really a "clear plurality".
    It actually is, based on the definition of plurality.

  5. #45
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Quote Originally Posted by Booger View Post
    It actually is, based on the definition of plurality.
    Depends on how you're parsing "clear", I suppose. Usually it means that there's a substantial margin--compare "a clear majority", "a bare majority". 1% is not substantial. But unless the margin of error is smaller than 1%, you don't actually know that there's a plurality who support. Do you know what a margin of error is? Do you even know the certainty of the confidence intervals provided?
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  6. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  7. #46
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Quote Originally Posted by Clive
    ...uh, what? Do you even know what chad's position is on same-sex marriage
    Of course he doesn't. Would he ever guess that I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Of course not. That would conflict with his ignorant stereotyping of people. Its confusing to have stereotypes challenged and it also means that he cannot spout bigoted bull **** about Midwesterners that he has never met. Its mentally easier to live in ignorance.

    And that is why he will be ignored, I'm sick of people who are simply nasty because they are protected by the anonymity of the internet.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  8. Likes Kivam, Squatch347 liked this post
  9. #47
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,749
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Quote Originally Posted by Booger View Post
    No. Social commentary in the form of a meme mocking the absurd, taking-away-our-freedom perspective of healthcare reform. Clive knew that, but chose to respond with the old play dumb/sarcasm/create a straw man routine. Clearly, Sudden Clarity Clarence struck a nerve!
    Or rather was Clive making a point about the ridiculousness of your meme, but you couldn't figure that out?

    Quote Originally Posted by Booger View Post
    Lolz. You cite your poll, I cite mine. But I would point out the following:
    Great and ad hom that bears no actual relevance to the question at hand. Good job Booger. Can you actually point out a single methodological error? Can you point out a single poll that actually supports your position? Remember that 1% margin given a 3% margin for error isn't meaningful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Booger
    Hmmm. I don't recall gallup's objectivity being questioned...
    Of course your don't Booger, you are ill-informed.

    Gallup is known for drawing pretty extreme headlines from weak polling data, a la your 1% "clear plurality."

    More relevantly, reports of bias for Rasmussen were brought up in the run up to the ACA passage, but Gallup's methodology was similar and showed similar trends (though delayed in time series due largely to their data collection methods).


    Quote Originally Posted by Booger
    It actually is, based on the definition of plurality.
    Not when the margin of error on the poll is above 1%, have you taken a statistics class lately?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #48
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    You can do that in Alaska, the livings hard but you can pretty much get off the grid and just live on what you can catch. One of my Uncles and his family did that for many years.
    I guess the Dirty Work reference was missed. Oh well, it can be obscure. I've considered it several times, but something tells me that no matter where one goes, escaping society is impossible.

    They will find you, and ram it down your throat.
    Witty puns...

  11. #49
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,749
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilPup John View Post
    I guess the Dirty Work reference was missed. Oh well, it can be obscure. I've considered it several times, but something tells me that no matter where one goes, escaping society is impossible.

    They will find you, and ram it down your throat.
    This does bring up a good point brought up by Heritage. Since these taxes are largely regressive in nature and regressive taxes have historically increased tax evasion, we are likely to see a decrease in tax filings by those on the lower end of the tax scale.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  12. #50
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NY, NY
    Posts
    670
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Quote Originally Posted by Booger View Post
    Lil ol me polarized the country? Cool!
    Yep. That's exactly what I said. Not "attitudes like yours", but "you"

    Matching sarcasm with sarcasm =/= acting asinine.
    Actually, it does. Why is it so hard for people to discuss serious issues like adults rather than children looking to score points?


    And how I have gotten either nasty or personal?
    Hmm . . .

    Oh weren't you? /Clive brings the dumb act.

    Nope, nothing either personal or nasty there.

    I do not know what you are talking about. Enlighten me.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8KeO_lirBo

    Watch and be enlightened.

    "The end of the USA as we know it just happened . . . it's done! Democracy's dead"

    ---------- Post added at 02:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Liberals tend to be very results-oriented when it comes to Supreme Court decisions; if it results in policies that you prefer, it was Rightly Decided (e.g., the current decision), and if it results in policies that you don't prefer, it was Wrongly Decided by an Evil Cabal of Ignorant Conservatives (e.g. Citizens United). What the Constitution actually says doesn't really figure in to this equation. Which is why you don't want to talk about the Constitution, you just want to make dumb cable-news rhetorical jabs.
    To be fair, this is pretty endemic on the right as well. Can't tell you how many "ZOMG, How could they have ruled it constitutional!" posts I've seen from people who haven't read the decision or even made the slightest attempts to understand the actual reasoning

    Personally, I find the Kennedy dissent more compelling, but Roberts' arguments are not absurd.
    Ah, well - apparently my kids were too distracting to stay as a sig. I take that as a compliment

  13. #51
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF,CA
    Posts
    2,133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    Booger, in a handful of posts you have represented all the nastiness and bigotry of the Left. You cannot engage in ideas without expressing extreme and hateful language. That is why I don't debate you and why I wont. I experience enough of that sort of bigotry from liberals in real life.
    See below re nastiness; I don't get it.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Yeah, a 1% approval margin is really a "clear plurality"....Depends on how you're parsing "clear", I suppose. Usually it means that there's a substantial margin--compare "a clear majority", "a bare majority". 1% is not substantial.
    Let's review what I said: "Clearly, the act garners plurality support, according to Gallup." I didn't say there was a "clear plurality" or a "substantial plurality;" what I said was that clearly, there was a plurality. In other words, the results clearly show a plurality, bare or otherwise. In other other words, the poll shows support outnumbers opposition, which is the definition of a plurality. I didn't claim it was a majority or a substantial plurality; just that the poll results clearly showed support outnumbers opposition. You can argue margin or error and if so, objection sustained; however, your contention that opposition outnumbers support such that the democratic process resulting in the enactment of the ACA amounted to shoving things down "the people's" gullet was not supported and is simply hyperbolic rhetoric.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    lol. You're not even pretending not to be a racist, now.
    I totally hate white people, especially white people like me.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    And why are you bringing this up here? If chad's being a hypocrite by opposing this but not supporting SSM, aren't you being a hypocrite by supporting SSM but not opposing this? Hamstrung yourself here...
    Nope.

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    Of course he doesn't. Would he ever guess that I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Of course not.
    You are correct; I am shocked. I see you differently now.

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    Its confusing to have stereotypes challenged and it also means that he cannot spout bigoted bull **** about Midwesterners that he has never met. Its mentally easier to live in ignorance.
    I am confused! And enough with your ignorance charges; you are being quite nasty!

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    And that is why he will be ignored, I'm sick of people who are simply nasty because they are protected by the anonymity of the internet.
    These charges of "nastiness" are unfounded. In what way am I being "nasty" that Clive or Squatch aren't, or anyone else in this thread?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Or rather was Clive making a point about the ridiculousness of your meme, but you couldn't figure that out?
    Totally possible; I'm stupid like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Great and ad hom that bears no actual relevance to the question at hand. Good job Booger. Can you actually point out a single methodological error? Can you point out a single poll that actually supports your position? Remember that 1% margin given a 3% margin for error isn't meaningful.

    Of course your [sic] don't Booger, you are ill-informed.
    I am ill-informed, ignorant and too dimwitted to catch on to the point Clive was making about the ridiculousness of my meme. Looks like nasty boy Squatch needs a spankin!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kivam View Post
    Oh weren't you [being nasty and personal]? [B]/Clive brings the dumb act.
    Kivvy, read more carefully. I said "Clive brings the dumb act" (emphasis added). That is, I was calling out his response as being not genuine. Not that Clive is dumb (he isn't; on the contrary, I find him to be quite intelligent and a formidable opponent). In any event, how is that "nasty and personal"? I think you are too sensitive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kivam View Post
    Watch and be enlightened.

    "The end of the USA as we know it just happened . . . it's done! Democracy's dead"
    Not sure what you want me to react to here? A guy crying because of Citizens United and the dominance of corporate influence in elections?

  14. #52
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Quote Originally Posted by Booger
    These charges of "nastiness" are unfounded. In what way am I being "nasty" that Clive or Squatch aren't, or anyone else in this thread?
    Please. I made a comment regarding constitutionality. You were derogatory. You were insulting. You were mocking. You specifically insulted white Midwesterners, such as myself. Calling us "fat" and "lazy" and "corn-fed". You specifically said these things in the context of my statement about "shoving it down our throats" followed immediately by your ignorant stereotyping.

    You did it in a matter that stereotyped and insulted my family, my friends, my loved ones.

    You said all of that before I even replied.

    Its not just here either. I see this exact same tone and approach in nearly every post you write. They are directed at easy targets, places where you can quickly score a few points and then retreat. I doubt you are like this in real life, but in the safety of anonymity it certainly comes out.

    I find that nasty. I find it cowardly. I find your opinions and stereotypes about people who differ from you bigoted. I have thought this for a long time. You did a wonderful job of proving that true today.

    I'm being nasty right now, I admit it. If any other debater here told me that, I would care. If Dio or Sig or any of these others whom I respect said that, I would care. Coming from you, I don't. I don't respect you. I'm calling you out on your ******** and now I'm done with you. Others can deal with it. You are on ignore.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  15. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  16. #53
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Clearly, the act garners plurality support, according to Gallup. And as far as votes not reflecting the will of the people, the "people" comprise a much broader group than white, Midwest conservative reactionaries regurgitating misguided and intellectually bereft abursidites about jamming stuff down their fat, lazy gullets, cornfed to them by Fox, Rush and the Koch boys. Besides, if chad was so worried about laws not reflecting the will of the people, I would expect him to be flying the rainbow flag and taking on anti-gay marriage nutjobs. But that won't happen. Why? Because he's just a sore loser, as argued.
    Not everyone can like... be a surfer dude, brah.
    Witty puns...

  17. #54
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NY, NY
    Posts
    670
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    You know the really interesting thing in all this? For all the angst I'm hearing on talk radio about the Court "ignoring the Constitution", Roberts and the dissent did not disagree on a single Constitutional issue. Roberts ruled that Congress lacked the Constitutional authority, under the Commerce Clause, to regulate inactivity or mandate commercial activity. The dissent agreed (and that is now the law of the land).

    Roberts argued that Congress had the Constitutional authority to issue a tax with all of the provisions of the mandate - and every single Justice on the Court agreed.

    The dissent didn't really argue "even if this is a tax, Congress lacked the authority to pass it" (there was some nod in there towards the "direct tax" argument, but not a serious claim that argument actually mattered to the outcome). They argued about whether Congress had, in fact, written a tax.

    Thinking it over a day later, I see no constitutional significance in that disagreement.
    Ah, well - apparently my kids were too distracting to stay as a sig. I take that as a compliment

  18. Likes Sigfried liked this post
  19. #55
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF,CA
    Posts
    2,133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    Please. I made a comment regarding constitutionality. You were derogatory. You were insulting. You were mocking. You specifically insulted white Midwesterners, such as myself. Calling us "fat" and "lazy" and "corn-fed". You specifically said these things in the context of my statement about "shoving it down our throats" followed immediately by your ignorant stereotyping.
    You're just mad because I called you out and to task--and you had no answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    You did it in a matter that stereotyped and insulted my family, my friends, my loved ones.
    Give me a break.

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    Its not just here either. I see this exact same tone and approach in nearly every post you write. They are directed at easy targets, places where you can quickly score a few points and then retreat. I doubt you are like this in real life, but in the safety of anonymity it certainly comes out.
    Earth to chad--everyone, you included, do the same thing. You simply lack self-awareness.

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    I find that nasty. I find it cowardly. I find your opinions and stereotypes about people who differ from you bigoted. I have thought this for a long time. You did a wonderful job of proving that true today.
    I find your arguments generally unpersuasive--don't get mad if, on a debate site, I call you out on it and all you can do is cry "your nasty; I'm not playing anymore" and hide from your terrible arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    I'm being nasty right now, I admit it.
    Just like you do all the time on ODN, chad.

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    I don't respect you.
    Great; I don't need it.

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    You are on ignore.
    In other words, strong, countervailing voices NOT welcome!

    This all strikes me as bratty pettiness...

    ---------- Post added at 04:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilPup John View Post
    Not everyone can like... be a surfer dude, brah.
    It's bro, and we don't surf in NorCal.

  20. #56
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737
    Obama and the Dems...shoved this down our throats....
    Quote Originally Posted by Booger View Post
    In what way? You mean it was extensively debated, passed by both the House and Senate and signed by the President, all in accordance with the Constitutional process of passing laws? That is "shoving this down our throats"? Seems like you have more of a philosophical gripe with the democratic process than anything else, right? In other words, if the majority party controls all, no law opposed by the minority should pass? Is this your contention? If not, explain how this was "shoved down our throats"?
    I'd say that the use of procedural chicanery, backroom deals, and the extensive campaign of lies and the manipulation of numbers used to push this bill as aggressively as it was pushed was certainly "forcing it down our throats."

    Quote Originally Posted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
    “We’ll go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in but we're going to get health care reform passed for the America people."

    Every single official statement by the Administration and the Democrats that passed the bill said that the law was not a tax, yet the first argument from the Solicitor General, ultimately upheld by the Court, was that this is a tax. If it had been sold as a tax in the first place, given the slim majority it enjoyed in both houses and the political backroom deals that were needed to pass it at all, this alone would probably have sunk the effort.

    On the subject of the backroom deals, the Catholic Democrats who voted for Obamacare are probably kicking themselves right now, given that the HHS they empowered is now turning upon the very people that allowed the law to pass in yet another backroom deal that wasn't honored. This issue by itself, if it had been known, would have sunk the bill.

    There has been a consistent and concerted campaign throughout the process to hide the real cost of Obamacare through various forms of financial trickery, and current forecasts predict that Obamacare will cost trillions of dollars more than it was stated it would. If this issue had been fairly and accurately reported at the beginning, this probably would have sunk the bill by itself.

    Finally, the direct payouts to certain hesitant Senators reluctant to give their votes to a bill they knew was unpopular in their home states and the massive political pressure brought to bear against them to violate what they knew to be their constituency's wishes seems to me to be the very definition of "forcing it down our throats."
    -=[Talthas]=-
    ODN Senior Moderator

    ODN Rules

  21. #57
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    13,847
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Quote Originally Posted by Booger View Post
    Let's review what I said: "Clearly, the act garners plurality support, according to Gallup." I didn't say there was a "clear plurality" or a "substantial plurality;" what I said was that clearly, there was a plurality. In other words, the results clearly show a plurality, bare or otherwise. In other other words, the poll shows support outnumbers opposition, which is the definition of a plurality. I didn't claim it was a majority or a substantial plurality; just that the poll results clearly showed support outnumbers opposition. You can argue margin or error and if so, objection sustained; however, your contention that opposition outnumbers support such that the democratic process resulting in the enactment of the ACA amounted to shoving things down "the people's" gullet was not supported and is simply hyperbolic rhetoric.
    This is golden. If you don't know the margins of error, or the confidence levels, then you literally don't know what the Gallup numbers are saying. You don't even opaquely know what Gallup is saying.

    I totally hate white people, especially white people like me.
    Right, because the only form of racism is conscious hatred. Things like stereotypes can't be racist! How's the internet connection, there in 1960?

    Nope.
    Um, yes, actually. You're establishing an equivalence between opposing SSM on 'will of the people' grounds with opposing the ACA on 'will of the people' grounds. If chad is a hypocrite for opposing one but not the other, so are you.

    In other words, strong, countervailing voices NOT welcome!
    You're confusing "strong" with "loud".

    Also, you might want to confront the possibility that your opinion isn't worth hearing.
    Last edited by CliveStaples; June 30th, 2012 at 10:28 AM.
    If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. - Soren Kierkegaard
    **** you, I won't do what you tell me

    HOLY CRAP MY BLOG IS AWESOME

  22. #58
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,241
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    It's bro, and we don't surf in NorCal.
    Awful lota hate. Maybe you need to lighten up and have some fun.

    But, haters gonna hate.
    Witty puns...

  23. #59
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Quote Originally Posted by kevin View Post
    Well doing nothing is more wrong. As is letting poor die of diseases that can be treated.
    No one, not one single welfare leech has ever been turned away from services from a hospital that they needed. To claim otherwise amounts to little more than Obama worship. Furthermore, the real "victory" you see with this law is that "freeloaders no longer get a free ride" or something to the affect, please show me where in the law it says anything about welfare leeches having to pay for anything. Ill wait.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  24. #60
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    SF,CA
    Posts
    2,133
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Obamacare upheld

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    This is golden. If you don't know the margins of error, or the confidence levels, then you literally don't know what the Gallup numbers are saying. You don't even opaquely know what Gallup is saying.
    You make no sense; all of the data you speak of is included in the link. What's "golden" is the absurd conservative mythology that healthcare reform was "shoved down our throats"; it's nonsensical garbage. Elections have consequences. Deal.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Right, because the only form of racism is conscious hatred. Things like stereotypes can't be racist! How's the internet connection, there in 1960?
    Again, you make no sense. A racial stereotype is not necessarily racist, but I digress. In any event, with a nonsensical response like this, seems fairly clear you don't even opaquely know what racism is.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Um, yes, actually. You're establishing an equivalence between opposing SSM on 'will of the people' grounds with opposing the ACA on 'will of the people' grounds. If chad is a hypocrite for opposing one but not the other, so are you.
    "Um, yes"? What are you, a Valley Girl?

    And, for the third time, you make no sense. What chad established is that laws that are not in accordance with the "will of the people" (or seemingly the will of the minority party) are "shoved down our throats". Under that reasoning, since it now appears that a majority of Americans support SSM, then chad must agree that laws banning or hindering SSM are shoved down our throats, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    You're confusing "strong" with "loud".
    Challenge to support a claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by CliveStaples View Post
    Also, you might want to confront the possibility that your opinion isn't worth hearing.
    Objectively, of course. Good stuff, Clive!

 

 
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is ObamaCare "Socialism" or not?
    By evensaul in forum Current Events
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: April 14th, 2010, 05:54 AM
  2. Should ObamaCare be a "right" for all Americans?
    By evensaul in forum Politics
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: November 13th, 2009, 07:17 AM
  3. Facts About Obamacare
    By cds69 in forum Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: October 27th, 2009, 04:11 PM
  4. Partial birth abortion ban upheld
    By shugarbabies in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: April 24th, 2007, 03:01 PM
  5. The Right to an Abortion Must Be Upheld
    By Broken_Servant in forum General Debate
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 4th, 2005, 09:32 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •