mandating a purchase, just like Obamacare. why all the outrage now????

[SmarterthanYou]

This actually isn't even challenging. Some threads, I question my arguments at times, and meet some real intellect from opposing posters.

This thread was a strawman from the get-go. The fact that you & Damo are "sticking to your guns", as it were, is more entertaining than anything else.

the mere fact that you're trying so much obfuscation and misdirection on this shows me that i'm right on track with the comparison. the entertaining part is watching you go from trying to mischaracterize the apt comparison, to trying to minimize the comparison via the difference in costs, to exaggerated frustration while still holding your position.

 

[Damocles]

You said it yourself. It exists at such an infinitessimal level that it's absurd to argue it as an equivalency.

Incorrect, if the cost and risk involved in the security wasn't so much higher than the healthcare cost you may have a point, but you really don't. You just seem to be desperately trying to, as I said before, crawfish a way out of the argument you know you are losing.

And bringing up "intellectual dishonesty" is a hoot. Trying to compare the ongoing cost of bullets to the ongoing cost of insurance & healthcare. I mean, that's really amazing.

Yes, intellectually dishonest. You continue to attempt to make the "cost of a gun" to be the equivalent to the "cost of healthcare". That is intellectually dishonest when we've patiently explained to you that the cost of your security as a whole is more equivalent to the cost of healthcare as a whole.

Again, (repetition helps the intellectually dishonest realize they aren't going to get away with it) the cost of security (police, military, etc) is equivalent to the cost of healthcare as a whole. The cost of guns and bullets is more equivalent to the cost of premiums.

Care to make yourself look more foolish? I'm sure you will. I can't wait.

So far the only one that looks foolish is the one attempting to migrate the argument to "the cost of 'a gun' is equivalent to the cost of 'all healthcare'..."

That's desperation, and, as I said before, intellectually dishonest.

While you "can't wait" to make a fool of yourself, I certainly am enjoying it. I do have to get to work though...

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Wow, Damo - I just did a search on your name and "obtuse"; did you realize it was such a favorite of yours in debate?

Lots & lots of threads where you came around to calling people that.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

When affordability is at the crux of the issue?

Sure.

then you'd be wrong again. Do I need to go in to the history of gun legislation again to bring you up to speed? or do you prefer to maintain your willfully ignorant position?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Incorrect, if the cost and risk involved in the security wasn't so much higher than the healthcare cost you may have a point, but you really don't. You just seem to be desperately trying to, as I said before, crawfish a way out of the argument you know you are losing.

.

Here's where you're lost on this. We already pay for the police & the miliary, as well as other security organizations. These are already mandated, Damo. Why are you comparing those things, when the OP is talking about mandating the price of a gun?

We're not talking about mandating the cost of overall security. Why are you moving the goalposts in that way?

Do you even understand the OP, and what is being argued? Take a few minutes, and think about it. You're wasting my time right now.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Here's where you're lost on this. We already pay for the police & the miliary, as well as other security organizations. These are already mandated, Damo. Why are you comparing those things, when the OP is talking about mandating the price of a gun?

We're not talking about mandating the cost of overall security. Why are you moving the goalposts in that way?

Do you even understand the OP, and what is being argued? Take a few minutes, and think about it. You're wasting my time right now.[/QUOTE]I'm starting to wonder if you do...

 

[Damocles]

Wow, Damo - I just did a search on your name and "obtuse"; did you realize it was such a favorite of yours in debate?

Lots & lots of threads where you came around to calling people that.

Yeah, it used to be one of my faves. However when you use it in a post that simply doesn't address the point of the thread, it is almost invariably (and certainly in this case) a sign of frustration.

 

[Damocles]

Do you even understand the OP, and what is being argued? Take a few minutes, and think about it. You're wasting my time right now.

This is where it gets funny, I don't believe you fully comprehend what an intellectual argument is. And that is what makes it so very funny, and probably adds to your frustration as you fully comprehend that you are losing this argument and have actually looked at the ACA in a different perspective...

It's been a very successful thread. Even if you won't be intellectually honest and admit that the point of the thread (to get people like you to look at the ACA with a different perspective) was a success.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Yeah, it used to be one of my faves. However when you use it in a post that simply doesn't address the point of the thread, it is almost invariably (and certainly in this case) a sign of frustration.

Well, I hate to inform you of this, but you smoked yourself by bringing it up that way. By your own measure, you've been beaten many, many times.

Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

This is where it gets funny, I don't believe you fully comprehend what an intellectual argument is. And that is what makes it so very funny, and probably adds to your frustration as you fully comprehend that you are losing this argument and have actually looked at the ACA in a different perspective...

It's been a very successful thread. Even if you won't be intellectually honest and admit that the point of the thread (to get people like you to look at the ACA with a different perspective) was a success.

Nah - what's funny is that you had to edit the rest of my post out, because you can't address it.

Because you know I'm right. You're not stupid; you're actually pretty smart, and I think you realized the false equivalency you were creating.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

This is where it gets funny, I don't believe you fully comprehend what an intellectual argument is. And that is what makes it so very funny, and probably adds to your frustration as you fully comprehend that you are losing this argument and have actually looked at the ACA in a different perspective...

It's been a very successful thread. Even if you won't be intellectually honest and admit that the point of the thread (to get people like you to look at the ACA with a different perspective) was a success.

Damo, this thread is completely ludicrous. It's actually scary that you seem to believe this is an "intellectual" topic. I would laugh if my eyes hadn't just popped open.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Nah - what's funny is that you had to edit the rest of my post out, because you can't address it.

Because you know I'm right. You're not stupid; you're actually pretty smart, and I think you realized the false equivalency you were creating.

I really hope he's faking. Because this thread and its entire premise is so ludicrous I LOL'd when I first saw it and then ignored it until now. He better hope he's faking.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

hey darla, give the board your 'explanation' of why this is a ludicrous topic......and be 'intellectual' about it.

 

[Damocles]

Well, I hate to inform you of this, but you smoked yourself by bringing it up that way. By your own measure, you've been beaten many, many times.

Sorry 'bout that.

Do you realize that the use of the word wasn't the measure, but the fact that you didn't address the point of the the post you quoted? Are you really going to just double down on intellectual dishonesty rather than start participating? At this point you should really walk away from the thread, you've gone from lightspeed to ludicrous level now...

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Do you realize that the use of the word wasn't the measure, but the fact that you didn't address the point of the the post you quoted? Are you really going to just double down on intellectual dishonesty rather than start participating? At this point you should really walk away from the thread, you've gone from lightspeed to ludicrous level now...

LOL You always steal my words. You do.

 

[Damocles]

Nah - what's funny is that you had to edit the rest of my post out, because you can't address it.

Because you know I'm right. You're not stupid; you're actually pretty smart, and I think you realized the false equivalency you were creating.

LOL. I simply pointed out where it got extremely funny. That was exactly where...

 

[Damocles]

Damo, this thread is completely ludicrous. It's actually scary that you seem to believe this is an "intellectual" topic. I would laugh if my eyes hadn't just popped open.

Simply another who won't admit that she looked, even for a minute, at the ACA differently when "faced" with somebody forcing them to purchase something they didn't want using the same sudden new power the SCOTUS found for our government.

 

[Damocles]

hey darla, give the board your 'explanation' of why this is a ludicrous topic......and be 'intellectual' about it.

This.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Simply another who won't admit that she looked, even for a minute, at the ACA differently when "faced" with somebody forcing them to purchase something they didn't want using the same sudden new power the SCOTUS found for our government.

No, not even for a second. The comparison is ludicrous on its face. I can't even believe you're attempting to pretend otherwise.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

This.

Comparing guns to health care is so self-evidently nonsensical that only a far right wing ideologue would do anything other than laugh at it. It's like saying, hey Darla tell us why Elephants are not like vitamins. I would look at you like you were from another planet. The same expression I had on my face when I first read this.