Would it be fair as a general proposition to simply say magellan01 lacks integrity?
That first claim is (in my view) a good political “gotcha.” But it’s not substantive – the President said that it wasn’t a tax, yes; the Supreme Court was the entity that decided the Act was permissible as an exercise of the Congressional taxation power. And somehow it becomes President Obama’s lie. I suppose a program that is called Obamacare will have every single fault laid at Obama’s feet, but I think this is weak sauce.
If that was all that happened, I’d agree with you completely. But wasn’t it the case that Obama’s lawyers argued that it was a tax. That’s what I recall, though I may be mistaken. After years of him arguing that it was NOT a tax, he sends hiss lawyers in there and they argue it IS a tax. That seems patently dishonest.
Like a stopped clock that’s right twice a day, Bricker sometimes gets one right:
But he still is unwilling to answer my questions:
I actually don’t think those questions are legitimate. Yes, I think W was the worst president in my lifetime, and no, I don’t think there’s any comparison between Obama and W. in terms of competence.
HOWEVER, I also don’t think that’s relevant. Hatred of Clinton was on par with hatred of W or Obama. It’s been a generation at least since we had a president that didn’t bring out the daggers of his enemies.
Many personal attacks against Obama are racially motivated. But it’d be a break from American politics to have no nonracial personal attacks against him.
Only a cretin would claim that all attacks against Obama are racially motivated. That right-wingers twist remarks to have that meaning just shows they think rational thinkers are as stupid as they are.
What I refer to are otherwise-inexplicable irrational attacks, and venom directed against Obama specifically when “government” or “liberals” would be the more rational target.
I’ll give one specific example. When reading the following, be aware that all Presidents since Jimmy Carter have been photographed on a White House lawn with Marines holding umbrellas above their heads.
Do you believe that this kind of nasty and moronic reaction could occur if Obama were White? (I’m not sure if Sicks Ate is a racist, or just likes to get his political opinions from racist sources.)
The Supreme Court did not overrule the Obama administration’s claim that it was a penalty; it was persuaded by the Obama administration’s claim that it was a tax. The President absolutely guaranteed that it wasn’t a tax, and then went into court and swore that it was. An absolute guarantee seems pretty substantive to me, especially coupled with another absolute guarantee that Obama would never raise my taxes.
It was his idea, his law, his guarantee, and his argument. If ever a piece of legislation could be laid at a President’s feet, it’s Obamacare.
Regards,
Shodan
You no longer seem to be defending Joe Wilson’s specious (and false) claim that Obama lied about illegal immigrants being funded by the ACA – do you now accept that he did not lie, and your earlier cite’s claim (that health centers receiving funding that just might give services to an illegal immigrant amounts to illegal immigrants being funded by the ACA) is also false?
Sorry, okay, then, it’s back to being unsupported.
Not really. Obama’s lawyers argued that it was a proper exercise of Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. As an alternate rationale, they advanced the taxation argument – but that was not, so far as I can see, at any particular behest of the President. It was simply doing the job of a lawyer representing a client: find a colorable legal argument that advances the client’s interest.
I’m not saying I have some problem with amnesty on its own, but if you declare broad amnesty for millions of people from a law, and then put your foot down and say you’re going to enforce the law from now on, whose going to believe you?
We have laws now that we’re not enforcing very well, and amnesty would signal capitulation. So why would anyone think it will be different next time? What new law could you pass that would be more likely to deter people from entering illegally? We already have such laws and they haven’t worked, because it’s not the law, it’s our ability to, or will to, enforce them that is the problem.
I think a compromise is possible - amnesty plus tough new laws and enforcement mechanisms - that would pass Congress and actually work. But amnesty alone won’t do the trick, politically or practically.
No they aren’t. Not all of them.
Here’s an irrational attack against then-President Bush:
Do you believe that this kind of nasty and moronic reaction could occur if Bush were white?
Yes. 
Do you believe that this kind of nasty and moronic reaction could occur if Obama were black?
Yes.
Do you believe that this kind of nasty and moronic reaction could occur if Bush were black?
Yes.
Do you believe that this kind of nasty and moronic reaction could occur if Obama were white?
Yes.
Yes, and there are alot of cretins out there.
So you’re saying that you assume that all attacks on Obama that you believe are irrational can automatically be assumed to be racist?
That’s fucking absurd. Only a cretin would claim that.
Are you actually saying you think it wouldn’t? That a white president was never attacked viciously and irrationally? Were you born in 2008 or something? Jeez. Have you never heard right-wing radio and its daily attacks on tons of white people along with Obama?
You should google some of the intense, insane, irrational vitriol directed at Bill Clinton when he was president (and Hillary today) for some good examples.
No kidding. Remember the amazingly persistent attempts to create some sort of shadowy conspiracy in which the President and First Lady of the United States were responsible – personally responsible, mind you – for the murder of Deputy White House counsel Vince Foster?
I have no idea how old Septimus was in 1994, but I would venture a guess that, if alive at all, the answer was a single digit. I can conceive of no other likely explanation for his belief that irrational attacks against a sitting President can only be the result of racism.
No, you’re still wrong.
Regards,
Shodan
LOL. So every bill that has ever funded a library or a museum funds illegal immigrants, because some day (the horror!) an illegal immigrant might use a library or a museum. Just like an illegal immigrant might some day go into a hospital that gets some funding from the ACA.
So that’s the hill you and Joe Wilson are dying on. Really silly, if you ask me.
Well, yeah, and that was just one example. People tried to link Clinton to dozens of murders, and to drug cartels, to name a few. It was sheer lunacy. (example)
And that’s just Clinton. There are hundreds of other white victims of irrational, hateful, stupid political attacks (from both sides of the spectrum). Tune in to Rush Limbaugh’s show today and he’ll make a few new ones.
So my question “can Shodan admit he was wrong” is answered, apparently.
“Otherwise inexplicable”? An attack that calls Obama a racist epithet is otherwise inexplicable. An attack that’s just really stupid is explicable by virtue of a lot of partisans being really stupid and determined to attack their opponents with whatever idiotic weak sauce they have at hand. Just look at Shodan’s behavior in this thread. I absolutely believe that if Obama were an albino turtle Shodan would be making the same sort of cringing whiny petulant moronic attacks as he’s making now.