Well, being the herald of the Messiah presumably disqualifies you from being the actual Messiah. I mean, being your own herald is just too tacky for any Messiah to consider.
Yeahhhhhh…let’s take a look at these in order.
-
Newsweek did indeed print the cover you mentioned. What you didn’t mention was the subtitle: “Why the modern presidency may be too much for one person to handle.” Rather than deifying him, it’s suggesting he can’t handle the job, because the job is too big for any human to have. If you think this unflattering photoshop job and headline are glorifying Obama, you’re badly mistaken.
-
I’ll grant you that a total nutjob like Farrakhan may have called Obama a messiah. This is also a guy that has called white people “blue-eyed devils” and Jews “bloodsuckers.” I was under the impression that we were talking about what mainstream Americans who voted for Obama said, not about what racist lunatics said. Do we want to include racist lunatics in the equation? Because then I’ll start talking about all the anti-Christ imagery used to describe Obama, and believe me I’ll have a much easier time dredging that up than you’ve had finding someone describing Obama as a messiah.
Brian: I’m not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
Brian: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!
Brian: Now, fuck off!
[silence]
Arthur: How shall we fuck off, O Lord?
Do you think Newsweek believed he was the Messiah?
Does anyone actually care what Farrakhan says about anything?
Not really.
And Chris Matthews, asks “will it be the Messiah again..?”
[/QUOTE]
Like all the others, Matthews was discussing the views of others toward Obama, not expressing his own.
Is that what you were looking for from me…a cite where the administration considered it a tax?
Yes.
You were too busy sputtering and spewing to notice, I guess. You should calm down.
Actually, you should 1) be clear what you’re asking for and 2) come to the discussion with the most basic of knowledge before you start stomping your foot and making demands. You might as well have been demanding proof that Obama is the President. To be involved in a discussion about the mandate and not know that one of the arguments the administration made was that it was a tax is friggin [checks forum] mind boggling. Especially since that was the only grounds on which it was found constitutional!
Unfuckingbelievable.
Well, this board is dedicated to fighting ignorance…
Seriously, lance, magellan is right here. This is one of the most basic aspects of this court case.
That said, I think we’ve pretty clearly established that Obama’s actions in this case in no way warrant accusing him of lying. It’s barely possible that they constitute a lie (Obama: “Of course this is a tax! That said, I’ll devote most of my energy to lying about whether it’s a tax, and I’ll emphasize a totally different argument to make in favor of its constitutionality, an argument that several courts will accept, and I’ll only make the tax argument as an afterthought, knowing that it’ll be enough to persuade five of the nine justices of the Supreme Court. Mwahahaha!”), but unless a person’s standards for accusations of lying are absurdly low, we ought to put that one, and the hand-wringing “we should really expect better of the Obamessiah than that” conservative scolding, to bed.
I think I was.
Sorry, but I don’t accept you as a source of “knowledge.” Hence my asking for a citation.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
It’s not nearly that simple.
When you’re calling someone a liar, I want to know who said what and where and in what context.
And furthermore, did he ever say it is NOT a tax in the first place? He said it’s not a tax increase, but that’s not the same thing. The law doesn’t use the term “tax” but that’s also not the same thing as saying it’s not one.
This is discussion about the details. You can handle that without freaking out and acting all superior.
Like I said, you should calm down.
Well, God is His own son. It’s basically run on nepotism.
This brings us back to something I’ve explained to magellan already (though FTR he is justifiably upset that you didn’t know the administration argued it was a tax): it doesn’t fucking matter what Obama said it was. He didn’t propose it and he didn’t vote to pass it. It was described as a tax numerous times during congressional debate.
I didn’t ask about the court case though. I was challenging his notion that Obama lied.
As I recall, and I could be wrong, the administration argued in court that it is NOT a tax, and then argued that if the court finds it is a tax, its constitutional. That’s not the same thing as saying it is a tax.
I am not arguing about what was said, only whether it constitutes a lie by Obama.
There you go.
Step 1. Take your medication
Step 2. Get it through your giant cheese wheel skull that I have already stated NUMEROUS times that Obama lying is only one possibility. Really. I wrote the words several times. To help with this endeavor, read the fucking words I wrote. Hell, I even agree with LHOD’s notion that it is not near the most likely explanation for this debacle.
Step 3. Write a letter to The Ethicist, detailing the exchange between the two of us in this thread and then do what he recommends regarding your lack of reading comprehension, poor communication skills, ignorance, attitude, foot-stomping, demand making and general all around wrongness. That is, apologize.
I’ll wait.
- Read a freakin newspaper once in a while. Sheesh.
Okay, here I’ll have to ask for a cite. Where did they argue in court that it was not a tax?
That’s pretty fine semantic hairsplitting, and I think you’re on the wrong side of the hair anyway :). I believe their actual argument was that the law was constitutional under the commerce-regulation clause, and also under the taxation-powers clause. To make that argument, they claimed that, for the purposes of the taxation-powers clause it was a tax.
It’s not at all clear that that’s what you’re arguing, since you’ve asked for a cite where the administration said it was a tax. That certainly looks like you’re arguing about what was said. I agree it doesn’t rise to the level of “lie,” though.
magellan01, you insulted lance strongarm numerous times in this post, and you can’t do that in this forum regardless of how well-informed lance strongarm is or is not. This is an official warning not to do this again.
(Response deleted).
magellan01, you insulted lance strongarm numerous times in this post, and you can’t do that in this forum regardless of how well-informed lance strongarm is or is not. This is an official warning not to do this again.
[/QUOTE]
B-b-b-but I’m a doctor. I have an obligation to help those who need it.
Untrue, of course. And over the line. My apologies.
Where’s the outrage over mandatory car insurance for vehicle owners?
Well that’s the state doing it, not the “state” doing it. And that’s different … somehow. Or so the argument goes anyway.
I don’t know. I’m not the one to ask though.
Of course it is. It’s supposed to be. It’s a court brief. That’s how lawyers cover all their bases.
Not me, Obama’s solicitor.
Okay, same difference. They were saying it’s both.
But if it wasn’t said, but was rather stated in a court case, then that also is about what is said (or is NOT said). So I asked what was said, if anything.
I’m glad.