It Should Be Law That ALL Who Voted for Obamacare CANNOT get EXEMPTED from it.

[TemplarKormac]

Ok. Do you claim to speak for all Libertarians? Do all other Libertarians speak for you?

I'm pretty sure I know a bunch of self-described "Libertarians" who wouldn't agree with you on much. Do they speak for you?

I have "admitted" that I am a liberal. I have never denied it, nor shied away from the descriptor in any way. Your ridiculous idea that all liberals must be the same, and must support the same issues is as stupid as a lefty who calls all Conservatives racists.

We have our core principles. You flat out denied your being a liberal. We could go on like this forever Doc, but I'd rather not. If I didn't speak for libertarians, or let them speak for me, then I am not a libertarian, I am a slave to opinion.

Every self-described libertarian that I've ever met had slightly different political views than the others. None of them would EVER suggest that anyone else spoke for them.

Perhaps you see politics as a football game, where you're driven to support the home team, even if you think they chose a shitty play. I see it differently.

I have never met anyone who had the same political views as me. I speak for myself, and no one else - and no one speaks for me. I call myself a liberal because I feel that I meet the dictionary definition of the word, not because I agree with every other liberal on every single thing.

And please, don't be silly. The posts are all here, and in not a single one did I "deny" being a liberal.

"I do not speak for liberals, and they do not speak for me." I am very prodigious with the English language, so don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. You said you were a liberal, yet you claim you speak for none of them, and none of them speak for you. I will insist that you denied being a liberal, and so it shall be for me. You can continue with your paradoxical convictions if you wish to.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

1. How do you explain the "employer mandate" then? I thought you would have better reading comprehension skills than that, Doc. You are spewing the same rhetoric that Obama did. But in the end, you are lying just the same.

The "Employer Mandate" states that companies that employ more than 50 workers must provide insurance to their employees, or face fines.

How does that contradict anything I've said? The "employer mandate" has nothing to do with the exchanges.

More rather, I should have mentioned the individual mandate. Excuse me. So tell me where your argument is now, Doc? How do you explain that? If your gf gets to "keep her insurance" then why the individual mandate? Slick, but not slick enough.

The "Individual Mandate" states that everyone must have insurance, or face fines. My girlfriend has insurance through her job, satisfying the "individual mandate". Again, I don't know what you're trying to say here.

There is no "mandate" that you purchase your insurance in the exchanges. The exchanges exist to make it easier for those without insurance from their jobs to buy it, in order to satisfy the "individual mandate".

I'm starting to get the idea that you really don't understand anything about the law.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The "Employer Mandate" states that companies that employ more than 50 workers must provide insurance to their employees, or face fines.

How does that contradict anything I've said? The "employer mandate" has nothing to do with the exchanges.

More rather, I should have mentioned the individual mandate. Excuse me. So tell me where your argument is now, Doc? How do you explain that? If your gf gets to "keep her insurance" then why the individual mandate? Slick, but not slick enough.

The "Individual Mandate" states that everyone must have insurance, or face fines. My girlfriend has insurance through her job, satisfying the "individual mandate". Again, I don't know what you're trying to say here.

There is no "mandate" that you purchase your insurance in the exchanges. The exchanges exist to make it easier for those without insurance from their jobs to buy it, in order to satisfy the "individual mandate".

I'm starting to get the idea that you really don't understand anything about the law.

Of course not, I never once claimed I did. Nobody does. Who would attempt to understand a 2700+ page law?

But what I got you to do was defend it, after you contended that you did not like the law in the first place. That's quite enough, Doc. I'll be on my way now.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

We have our core principles. You flat out denied your being a liberal. We could go on like this forever Doc, but I'd rather not. If I didn't speak for libertarians, or let them speak for me, then I am not a libertarian, I am a slave to opinion.

Every self-described libertarian that I've ever met had slightly different political views than the others. None of them would EVER suggest that anyone else spoke for them.

Perhaps you see politics as a football game, where you're driven to support the home team, even if you think they chose a shitty play. I see it differently.

I have never met anyone who had the same political views as me. I speak for myself, and no one else - and no one speaks for me. I call myself a liberal because I feel that I meet the dictionary definition of the word, not because I agree with every other liberal on every single thing.

And please, don't be silly. The posts are all here, and in not a single one did I "deny" being a liberal.

"I do not speak for liberals, and they do not speak for me." I am very prodigious with the English language, so don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. You said you were a liberal, yet you claim you speak for none of them, and none of them speak for you. I will insist that you denied being a liberal, and so it shall be for me. You can continue with your paradoxical convictions if you wish to.

Even without discussing how obviously out of context your quote of me is, you didn't even get it right.

This is what I said:

I don't speak for "all the other liberals", nor do they speak for me.

In response to you making some comment about "all the other liberals".

For someone so "prodigious" in the English language, I would have thought that you'd understand my statement to be a rejection of your attempt to lay responsibility for claims attributed vaguely to "liberals" on me, and not a denial of my own personal liberalness.

Either way, it's pretty easy to clear up all the confusion. I consider myself to be a liberal.

Whether or not you believe me is up to you, but I can't for the life of me figure out why you wouldn't.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Every self-described libertarian that I've ever met had slightly different political views than the others. None of them would EVER suggest that anyone else spoke for them.

Perhaps you see politics as a football game, where you're driven to support the home team, even if you think they chose a shitty play. I see it differently.

I have never met anyone who had the same political views as me. I speak for myself, and no one else - and no one speaks for me. I call myself a liberal because I feel that I meet the dictionary definition of the word, not because I agree with every other liberal on every single thing.

And please, don't be silly. The posts are all here, and in not a single one did I "deny" being a liberal.

"I do not speak for liberals, and they do not speak for me." I am very prodigious with the English language, so don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. You said you were a liberal, yet you claim you speak for none of them, and none of them speak for you. I will insist that you denied being a liberal, and so it shall be for me. You can continue with your paradoxical convictions if you wish to.

Even without discussing how obviously out of context your quote of me is, you didn't even get it right.

This is what I said:

I don't speak for "all the other liberals", nor do they speak for me.

In response to you making some comment about "all the other liberals".

For someone so "prodigious" in the English language, I would have thought that you'd understand my statement to be a rejection of your attempt to lay responsibility for claims attributed vaguely to "liberals" on me, and not a denial of my own personal liberalness.

Either way, it's pretty easy to clear up all the confusion. I consider myself to be a liberal.

Whether or not you believe me is up to you, but I can't for the life of me figure out why you wouldn't.

Minutia, which has nothing to do with the thread. Have a good morning, Doc. You have already proven to me your dishonesty.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

More rather, I should have mentioned the individual mandate. Excuse me. So tell me where your argument is now, Doc? How do you explain that? If your gf gets to "keep her insurance" then why the individual mandate? Slick, but not slick enough.

The "Individual Mandate" states that everyone must have insurance, or face fines. My girlfriend has insurance through her job, satisfying the "individual mandate". Again, I don't know what you're trying to say here.

There is no "mandate" that you purchase your insurance in the exchanges. The exchanges exist to make it easier for those without insurance from their jobs to buy it, in order to satisfy the "individual mandate".

I'm starting to get the idea that you really don't understand anything about the law.

Of course not, I never once claimed I did. Nobody does. Who would attempt to understand a 2700+ page law?

I think it's pretty clear that at least relative to you, I understand quite a bit about the ACA.

But what I got you to do was defend it, after you contended that you did not like the law in the first place. That's quite enough, Doc. I'll be on my way now.

You didn't "get me" to do anything. You made a fool out of yourself by attacking my posts in this thread while not understanding anything you were talking about.

What you mistake as "defending" the ACA is actually me "defending" knowing what you're talking about.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I agree whole heartedly that everybody should be in ACA and none should not be in ACA.

Dude, the law needs some serious revision. It is the single biggest negative factor on the economy at this time, IMO.

You are correct on the first and fail on the second.

 

[L.K.Eder]

i am also very prodigious with the engrish language.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

"I do not speak for liberals, and they do not speak for me." I am very prodigious with the English language, so don't try to pull the wool over my eyes. You said you were a liberal, yet you claim you speak for none of them, and none of them speak for you. I will insist that you denied being a liberal, and so it shall be for me. You can continue with your paradoxical convictions if you wish to.

Even without discussing how obviously out of context your quote of me is, you didn't even get it right.

This is what I said:

I don't speak for "all the other liberals", nor do they speak for me.

In response to you making some comment about "all the other liberals".

For someone so "prodigious" in the English language, I would have thought that you'd understand my statement to be a rejection of your attempt to lay responsibility for claims attributed vaguely to "liberals" on me, and not a denial of my own personal liberalness.

Either way, it's pretty easy to clear up all the confusion. I consider myself to be a liberal.

Whether or not you believe me is up to you, but I can't for the life of me figure out why you wouldn't.

Minutia, which has nothing to do with the thread. Have a good morning, Doc. You have already proven to me your dishonesty.

Indeed. Minutia about whether or not I'm a "liberal" that you've been using to derail the thread for last page or so, after it became clear that all of your on topic posts were simply wrong. I'm more than happy to return to the topic of the thread.

Good morning to you as well.

Feel free to respond at your leisure tomorrow.

 

[TemplarKormac]

i am also very prodigious with the engrish language.

No, you're just a liberal proficient in trickery and sleight of hand.

 

[LoneLaugher]

i am also very prodigious with the engrish language.

Yes....very prodigious indeed. Is this your website?

Engrish.com

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't know about everyone else, but I have had just about enough of the Doc here denying that he is a liberal! Who does he think he is?

 

[Sallow]

By "exempted" you mean a one-year delay requested by businesses?

I mean ANYTHING THE REST OF US DONT GET.

Congress used to routinely exempt themselves from the laws they passed, and lately have disavowed that practice. But when the going gets tough they retreat to self-exemption once again.

It is utter hypocrital bullshit for them to impose that crap on us while exempting themselves AT ALL.

Congress gets a lot of goodies you don't get.

They get single payer government health care. That was the original plan by the way until Republicans intervened and wanted to go with the individual mandate.

They also, like Michelle Bachmann, get to work on and pass legislation that personally benefits them..with your money. That's called conflict of interest and if they were a normal lawyer or judge they couldn't do that shit.

They also generally get nice cushy jobs after they leave congress. That's from the corporations that put them there.

So it's interesting you are just pissed about this.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Even without discussing how obviously out of context your quote of me is, you didn't even get it right.

This is what I said:


In response to you making some comment about "all the other liberals".

For someone so "prodigious" in the English language, I would have thought that you'd understand my statement to be a rejection of your attempt to lay responsibility for claims attributed vaguely to "liberals" on me, and not a denial of my own personal liberalness.

Either way, it's pretty easy to clear up all the confusion. I consider myself to be a liberal.

Whether or not you believe me is up to you, but I can't for the life of me figure out why you wouldn't.

Minutia, which has nothing to do with the thread. Have a good morning, Doc. You have already proven to me your dishonesty.

Indeed. Minutia about whether or not I'm a "liberal" that you've been using to derail the thread for last page or so, after it became clear that all of your on topic posts were simply wrong. I'm more than happy to return to the topic of the thread.

Good morning to you as well.

Feel free to respond at your leisure tomorrow.

Since it is tomorrow, I'll respond today. I proved twofold things. One, you are not a liberal who insists he's a liberal, who two, contends he hates the ACA but insists on defending it.

Feel free to liberate yourself from the paradox at any time. My debate style is unique, and you fell victim to it. You failed to clear up any confusion by your constant changes of mind and obfuscation. You are a walking enigma, Doc. What is minutial here, is your hollow denials of who you are and what you support. Your overly defensive reactions indicate that I baited you into admitting what I knew all along.

Now that we are finished here, have a good day, Doc.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION]: and [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION]: should just get a room, I'm not putting up with their bullshit today.

 

[Sallow]

[MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION]: and [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION]: should just get a room, I'm not putting up with their bullshit today.

Then don't post here..or become a mod.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Minutia, which has nothing to do with the thread. Have a good morning, Doc. You have already proven to me your dishonesty.

Indeed. Minutia about whether or not I'm a "liberal" that you've been using to derail the thread for last page or so, after it became clear that all of your on topic posts were simply wrong. I'm more than happy to return to the topic of the thread.

Good morning to you as well.

Feel free to respond at your leisure tomorrow.

Since it is tomorrow, I'll respond today. I proved twofold things. One, you are not a liberal who insists he's a liberal, who two, contends he hates the ACA but insists on defending it.

Feel free to liberate yourself from the paradox at any time. My debate style is unique, and you fell victim to it. You failed to clear up any confusion by your constant changes of mind and obfuscation. You are a walking enigma, Doc. What is minutial here, is your hollow denials of who you are and what you support. Your overly defensive reactions indicate that I baited you into admitting what I knew all along.

Now that we are finished here, have a good day, Doc.

Ah. So you don't want to return to the thread topic. Color me shocked.

What you consider to be "paradoxes" and rhetorical victories are actually completely easy to understand once you realize that the spectrum of possible political views is in fact infinitely larger than the simple categories that you've been influenced to put people in to.

 

[L.K.Eder]

[MENTION=32973]LoneLaugher[/MENTION]: and [MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION]: should just get a room, I'm not putting up with their bullshit today.

why not, got something important to do today?

with your gaming circle, maybe?

 

[L.K.Eder]

i am also very prodigious with the engrish language.

No, you're just a liberal proficient in trickery and sleight of hand.

i have destroyed you with my unique debate style.

consider yourself laid to rest.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Where'd he go?