Alright, this multiquote **** getting really annoying. To sum up, I said what I meant and if you think otherwise, more power to you. You think anyone is under the impression that I'm shy about stating my opinion?
As a matter of fact, I don't think you are, which is why I don't think you meant it as a "joke" until it got you into trouble.
If you're getting frustrated, then you should probably consider what you post more carefully.
"You didn't claim 'same effect' as. You said it meant as."
What does that jabber mean? :lol:
:shrug: Your equivocation, and your moving goalposts. You earlier said they intended it to be tax. You were even "sure" the record of legislative intent would show it. Now you're simply saying it has the "same effect" as a tax.
Re: your circular logic, this is one of those sad moments where, if someone is too dumb to see the pure dumbness of what he wrote, he's probably also too dumb to understand the explanation.
This still does not refute me in any way, shape, or form.
And no, you have not distinguished the cases. You made the "no **** Sherlock" observation that the facts were different and that's about it.
Good grief -- "the facts are
totally different, but that doesn't distinguish the case." Anyone with a fourth-grade education can identify how silly
that is.
I also said two other categories of things were different about it -- the nature of the laws at issue and the situations they meant to address. Gosh, how could
that possibly affect the analysis of things like rational basis? Howsoever, indeed?
If those things do not distinguish a case, then no cases can ever be distinguished.
And re: the mandate, you are right -- it is no more a mandate than Paul Ryan's tax credit. Saying you don't give a **** about it doesn't address the subject.
I'll pull a Harshaw here and say that you really DO give a **** about it, but you have no answer to it and so you're trying to blow it off.
I don't need to address the Ryan plan, because 1) it has nothing to do with this Supreme Court case, and 2) I never said a word about it, for it or against it. The Ryan plan has zip, nada, nil, zero to do with this argument in any way, shape, or form. Demanding that I "address" it in some way is completely vapid. It's totally irrelevant, period, full stop.