Thank you for your insults and insolence, generally tools in the debaters arsenal when the arguments are weak. No exception in this case, as your comeback to my suggestion that the Affordable Care Act was[/quote]
lol, don't make snide comments if you don't want them returned chief. Also, it's a little hard to claim the high ground after you tried to take it to the sewer and got dunked for your trouble
I said they have "Rs" next to their names; not that they were tea baggers. So, your basic retort is that are all RINOs'... which, of course, means they have "R's next to their name.
You didn't simply comment about them being republicans, but tried to wax on knowledgeably about the republicans turning away from the policy in a modern context, which did little more than betray your ignorence of what it was, who was pushing it, and the fact your knowledge came from 2-bit media sources like facebook
Wow! I'm not sure a counter argument could be any weaker.
Is this like the fatkid flexing in the mirro calling himself "beefcake"?
This whole "RINO" thing is the ultimate farce.
I didn't call them RINOs, I pointed out that is how they are perceived by the modern GOP. A fact that you overlooked as you were casting the turn against the policy as a politically motivated one, as opposed to a shift in the politics of the party. Something anyone knows that doesn't get their knowledge from facebook memes
Let's forget for a moment that the very concept of RINO is quite cute.... but, they are Republicans. Romney, the guy that beta tested Obamacare in Massachusetts, was the the Republican nominee for President less than year ago.
Yes, a guy that was universally hated by the base and only nominated because the march of crazy personalities that comprised a long list of front runners naturally self destructed. So it's odd that anyone would try to cast him as some type of GOP golden boy, as opposed to a candidate of conveniance. Well, anyone with an actual grasp of american politics and the ability to actually read something worth it's type face ...
Somehow, you think you can stick a "RINO" label on someone, wash your hands of them and re-write history.
No, I think Romney was largely reviled by the modern incarnation of his own party and had to constantly placate a very vigorous and social conservative base, which he is not, and who hate concepts like the ACA because of some brain dead conception of socialism.
Honestly, do you even follow politics?
Sorry, you are only re-writing your fantasy and your fantasy is not an appropriate nor effective counter-argument.
There isn't much I can say if you're so intellectually stunted that you can't even recall the political realities of last year, because the blogosphere has sold you on some silly narrative about the modern gop
Of course, we could have a whole discussion about what a RINO is. To me they are those endorsed by the tea party, most of whom are nothing but thugs and idiots, that occupy offices reserved for statesmen and leaders.... child place holders waiting for the adults to show up and govern, but that is another discussion.
The tea party endorsing RINOs? Again, do you have any concept of the modern political realities of this country?
Also, what is cute is your shallow assertion that I get my news from Facebook.
That wasn't an assertion, it's a fact revealed by your argument that the modern GOP would endorse any such bill, based on the nominal backing of center-right fiscal concervatives in the 90's. Such an argument betrays nothing but a shallowness and ignorance in both knowledge and understanding
Obviously you haven't read to many of my posts, most of which are well supported.
Whoa, we got a bad-ass here ...
Now this thing on Facebook was interesting. If actually spend my time on Facebook, perhaps I would have seen it, but its not a site I frequent. I am glad you do. Perhaps you would like to see some of my sources, including a couple that well articulate how well ObamaCare Romney-style has been accepted in Massachusetts (hint: you'll be impressed)
You're making an appeal to popularity, which does not outline a bill as being a "good thing" (popular=/= effective and sustainable legislation). The entire intent of the law is still to conserve the interest of modern market forces that serve little real need in delivering healthcare. And we already covered how it was center right policy, but that it never had support of the more reactive elements of the now dominate republican base. So I am unsure what repeating the same failed argument, ad nauseum, is suppose to achieve, besides a blatant appeal to authority in an attempt to prop up an already failed argument.
But if you want to talk about specific issues with Massachusetts healthcare I would be happy to do so, like the lack of cost containment, the shortage of primary care physicians driving ER use, the pooling of the individual market with the small business one, or even lack of participation in the exchanges by healthy full paying adults.
Just let me know.