Here he started a thread and he’s wrong in his own OP, which is just 4 words plus a link.
It’s as if he doesn’t know that words have meanings or something.
And he failed to properly format the last 2 paragraphs (3 sentences) which aren’t his own words but rather are quoted from the article he linked to.
Since we’re talking about the definition of words, “wrong” also means something, and I’m not wrong. the article clearly states that Obama chose to oppose the mandate to differentiate himself from Clinton, and abandoned it the second Clinton dropped out of the race.
Stop kicking yourself in the eye. If you’re going to put your foot in your mouth, at least do it with proper aim.
Except that, as a cite later in that thread shows, he didn’t “abandon it the second Clinton dropped out of the race”. So, you know - wrong again.
A cite contradicts my cite and therefore I’m wrong?
My estimation of the quality of this board just plummeted.
Ryan Lizza is a prominent liberal journalist. My source was nonpartisan. You’re wrong.
With your track record, that must mean the quality of this board is unparalleled!
Case in point:
Lizza is not a “prominent liberal journalist”- he’s an award-winning journalist who has covered and profiled both sides for many years, and keeps his ideology out of his writing.
God, you just can’t complete a post without a factual error!
That article from the “prominent liberal journalist” includes the complete text of a memo which incorporates an argument as to why the healthcare bill needs to include an individual mandate, including acknowledgement of Obama’s reasons for not wanting one.
So our cite trumps your cite. And you’re wrong. Again.
Remember, to someone like adaher, everyone is to the left.
There were already too damn many of those.
Let’s examine this assertion, shall we? This implies that Obama personally * wanted * an individual mandate. But as we’ve seen, the individual mandate is the most problematic aspect of the ACA. It barely survived a Supreme Court challenge, it puts a monetary burden on young adults who tend not to have any (and depends on them being fiscally responsible and spending on healthcare instead of beer), and is probably not required if you can adopt the arguably superior single-payer health plan.
So your argument is that back in 2008, Obama knew in advance that they’d end up with a Massachusetts-style health plan rather than single-payer and that he was in favor of a particularly problematic aspect of that health plan. Whereas the cite that “Really Not All That Bright” gives us indicates that Obama had to be convinced that an individual mandate was necessary.
Occam’s razor indicates that this is a more likely scenario. Because no one actually * likes * the individual mandate – it’s regarded as an unfortunate conjunct to the coverage of existing conditions.
The people who thought of the plan liked it. That would be the Conservative Heritage Foundation. It was a way to keep the free market involved instead of the eebil gub’mint supplanting for-profit insurance companies.
It’s an astoundingly bad idea. Unfortunately given the political climate, it’s also the only thing that would fly and it so happens to still be better than doing nothing. So this was the compromise that Republicans claim isn’t happening now. Well, of course it’s not. It already happened.
It has to be noticed though that that is also what happens in many European nations that do give Universal access to their citizens, and still they do it with less costs to their nations.
Until more controls and oversight (that does make the systems in Europe work) are implemented it is not very good, but as Lincon said, “one war a time, please.” in other thread I noticed that even right wingers that oppose this are also afraid that if competition fails to cover most citizens that even local public plans are likely to be plugged to the exchanges, so I see the ACA in its current form as not the end of the reforms that will continue in the future.
Not only has he not left, not only is he not slowing down, he’s actually stepping on the accelerator in terms of posting frequency. Wrongness is still about the same - constant and consistent and complete.
Maybe he’s worried about possible future attempts at his record and wants to ensure his lead is insurmountable with current life spans? ( Or maybe Fox bumped up their compensation per post by a penny?)
As Unca Cecil pointed out in a similar context, sometimes they seem to want to stick around, presumably to keep their disgust fresh.
I’ve limited myself to like three threads, two of which I started. And I got something right: I predicted the VA governor race would be much closer than the polls stated due to late movement against McCauliffe, and I was right.
Meanwhile, much of the liberal Doper community were saying, “blowout”. Fail.
Come to this thread and watch adaher spin yesterday’s election results as a Tea Party win! 
Did I spin it as a win? I believe I said a ‘warning’ to Democrats. They only won by 2.4 points against a far right candidate who they outspent massively. They won’t have that advantage in many races in 2014.
They’ll also have decent candidates, which McAuliffe was not. There’s no way this is bad news for anyone but the Republicans.
Taken in a vacuum, sure. But it’s not the whole story. That would be like saying that Christie’s win is bad news for Democrats beyond that one race.
There’s no “whole story” that paints this as bad news for the Democrats. A loss in the AG race would be (slightly) bad news, and that may happen after the recount. But the governor’s race is good news- McAuliffe was a bad candidate with no elected experience, and Cuccinelli was the sitting AG running to replace a Republican governor. And McAuliffe won. This was a result that tells us that Virginia is getting bluer and bluer.