Massachusetts is a liberal state with a low poverty rate.
And here’s a little advice for you, friend. Don’t start stomping your foot demanding people to back top claims they haven’t made. And should you do it anyway, when a poster expresses confusion and suggests that you might have him confused with someone else, go back and reread the thread. If you had taken the small step you would have realized that I do not hold the position you were trying to pin on me. Like I said, I think it was probably Shodan. But should you decide to not do that on your own and then another poster, especially one clearly on your side of the debate, points out that you’re not handling things correctly or fairly, you really should go back and reread the thread then. Doing so would not only clear up any confusion you might have had, it would enable you to see that you treated a poster unfairly and take whatever actions your moral compass points you to. For most of us, that would probably mean an apology was in order.
Not all. Just most.
But since you didn’t feel the compunction to do these things on your own, I’m requesting that you do so. I am directly asking you to apologize.
If the claim you say you didn’t make is that Obama was lying, you kinda did make that claim, magellan.
Thanks. The interesting number for me would be the percent of adults who have jobs who own cars. If we’re talking about cars as a necessity for earning a living, that would give a better look into how likely it is to be able to “have a livelihood” and not own a car.
Good point. I’m not sure how to Google that number. It would astonish me if it were lower than 92%, though: surely the proportion of carless people is higher among people who lack jobs also.
And of course in some places it’s possible to have a job and no car. In much of the US, though, lacking a car makes it far more difficult to have a job.
I don’t know if it’s relevant, but since someone mentioned not having a car, I don’t have one and I make a decent living, and not in a transit-friendly area, although we do have barely adequate transit.
According to Wikipedia, Massachusetts has a poverty rate of 10.1%, compared to a national average of 12.6%. Is 2.5 percent really enough to make their system terrible for the whole country?
Nope. You’ve taken that out of context. It is not my position that he lied. And you should know that since you extracted that quote from an exchange with you:
[QUOTE=LHOD]
Why not? If Obama believes, as I do, that this law will save lives, and if he believes, as I do, that whether it’s called a tax or a penalty is a bit of semantics with little actual effect, why wouldn’t he direct his attorneys to argue for the law’s constitutionality along lines that he personally rejects but that he thinks might save the law?
Claiming that doing so is immoral seems mighty pedantic to me.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Because it turns him into a liar. He holds a unique position of power, which he was elected to. He gave speech after speech arguing for Obamacare, and the mandate specifically. The mandate was the sticking point. He swore up and down that it was NOT a tax. That no doubt made some percentage of the people more comfortable with it. And that encouraged more congressmen to vote for it, thinking that their constituents were supportive of it. But after assuring everyone in God knows how many interviews and speeches that the mandate was not a tax, he seeks to have it pass constitutionality on that basis. The is either flat out lying or being comfortable with selling people one thing and switching what you told them you were selling at the last minute and having them not have the opportunity to back out of the deal. BOTH of those options are unethical.
As I’ve mentioned in earlier threads. The SCOTUS decision should require a new vote. Because what was voted on was not the law that was passed. THAT is the ethical avenue.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
(emphasis added)
I have to jump on the phone now, but if you read this and every one of my other posts regarding lying, you will see that I am not of the opinion that he lied. It is merely one explanation. And one, as you wrote before, is not the most likely option. I’d ask you to, to reread the thread.
Additionally, look at Post 95. Notice how I didn’t challenge your assertion when you answered the way you did?
And look at the initial between me and lance armstrong in POst 135.
Gotta run.
I’m probably going to confuse people here, but I’m going to backtrack on the claim that ACA is bad for the whole country. As a policy, I could accept ACA if the public wanted it. Health care is too important an issue, affecting people directly, to be changed so drastically without public support.
My impression is that your position has evolved over the course of the thread. In any case, the bit you bolded–“The is either flat out lying or being comfortable with selling people one thing and switching what you told them you were selling at the last minute and having them not have the opportunity to back out of the deal. BOTH of those options are unethical”–doesn’t sound to me like a choice between lying and not-lying; rather, it sounds like a choice between flat out lying and a different form of dishonesty that I can’t really distinguish from lying.
From my vantage point, there have been a few posts of yours in this thread that look very much like your accusing Obama of lying, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable for other folk to ask for your clarification on this.
Of course, I expect you’ll take my feedback every bit as seriously as lance is taking my feedback to him :).
Well that’s the thing. The public is terribly misinformed on the subject. Almost like there’s this entire group of people in positions of influence lying to them about it. Every time I’ve run individual provisions of Obamacare by people, they’re all in favor of them - as long as I never mention the word ‘Obamacare’.
And half of the people who say they are ‘against’ it are actually just disappointed that it didn’t go further, like all the way to single payer. To lump those that hate it with those that don’t think it goes far enough together and consider that one group as ‘against’ is disingenuous. They are taking credit for people that severely disagree with them. Completely dishonest characterization of the actual reality of the situation.
And people who conduct polls have found the same thing.
So, adaher, at this point some clarification is necessary. Is it good public policy if people support the actual policies, or is it only good public policy if people like the brand-name given to it by its enemies?
Because people seem to love the actual policies and to hate the brand-name that Republican spin-meisters have come up with.
If we renamed it The Ronald Reagan Memorial Health Care Program, would that make it better?
It’s not confusing, but you seem to be playing a nice game of dodge 'em. First the issue is that it’s unconstitutional. OK, so what if all states passed something similar individually? Well then it’s still bad national policy because of poverty differences. OK, so what if it’s working in a state with a poverty level pretty close to the national average? Well, then it’s still bad because not enough people support it.
The Wiki article on the ACA cites a June 2012 poll saying that 44% of Americans support it. Considering A) a certain percentage of Americans believe that the moon landing was faked, and B) some part of the 56% of opposition don’t like it because it’s not a single-payer system, I think 44% is pretty damned good. Also, it wasn’t forced on us by Obama, it was passed by our democratically elected congress, both parts of it.
There are legitimate reasons not to like the ACA, the simplest one being that middle class people will probably end up paying slightly more in taxes to cover poor people. I know that really grinds the gears of a lot of Republicans. But “my taxes will go up slightly” isn’t the same thing as “the ACA is a travesty foisted upon America by a cabal of lying liberals.”
Not everything is a simple fact to be looked up. Reasonable people can disagree about details. That’s why we have courts and stuff.
Stop taking things personally and taking things so seriously. It’s just a discussion. If you just answered questions intead of taking offense so often, there wouldn’t be as much confusion in the first place. That is all I have to say about that, since I don’t want to drift into personal territory again as the moderators have warned against.
Fine. If you will review you will see that I couldn’t figure out what you were asking. And you were the won that started stomping his foot demanding for cites.
Onward.
No, not all. Just significant. And I agree, let’s drop this