White House still avoiding calling health-care mandate a tax

I am not judging him on his tools and actions. I am just answering a question on how could anyone consider his actions to be considered lying.

 

If you don't care about the former, why would you care about the latter?

 

Just because something might be justified, doesn't mean it no longer exists. I believe drone strikes are 'ends justify means' but I don't pretend innocents aren't being killed.

 

There's a big difference between innocents being killed, and people trying to find any consolation in a ruling that went against them by trying to assassinate the character of the president rather than the substance of his bill. I actually don't like ACA that much, not that the debate has focused very often on the merits of the plan itself.

Anyways, you don't believe in judging his methods, but you want to explain to others who might how they could judge his methods? That's rather polite of you, I suppose.

 

Right so, I said I am not judging his methods in this discussion. I tried to get this discussion to a point of us not talking past each other.


I still believe my original response to this:
Why is Obama a liar for disagreeing that the mandate penalty is actually a tax?

s fair and on point.

as for this:

I don't understand what you mean again.

 

You don't judge the president. That question that you answered is meant explicitly to justify how one could judge the president. One can only assume you have either posted against your will, been misled somehow, or are being polite for the benefit of others.

If so, kudos. We don't have much to discuss then. I have a mild disdain for those who were looking to assassinate the president's character based on the ruling rather than on focusing on the actual issue.

 

I don't understand the point of posting this nonsense. The discussion is not about the outcome or if the actions were justified. It is specifically about the actions. If you didn't want in on that discussion, you shouldn't have cut in.

 

If you are allowing that the president was justified in lying, why are so hung up on the fact that he lied?

Especially considering that him "lying" might have saved American lives instead of killing innocent foreigners.

 

Telling someone how his actions could be construed as lying doesn't really mean I a hung up on it.

 

Spoken like a lawyer.

The President is not a liar in this case, and even if he were "construed as such", it is irrelevant and, even if one wanted to examine it, justified by the ends. As long as you can tow that line, we're cool.

 

You are in the vast minority if you feel one reply to a questions means I am 'hung up on' on it.
I think the real issue is you wanted to have a discussion of "White House still avoiding calling health-care mandate a tax - Is that Justified?"

Here is it:
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=222277

 

I think your general response to the health care ruling---spread over multiple threads---, seems to indicate you're pretty hung up on it.

Regardless, I'm glad to know you think the legal proceedings behind upholding Obamacare were right on board. I was beginning to think otherwise with you verging to say that Obama was a liar.

 

Can you cite a source on that?

Well I guess you will be sad to know I think they got totally owned in the legal process. The solicitor general's performance bordered on incompetence.

 

Your excessive imagery in the SCOTUS thread would seem to be indicative.

Do elaborate on how a victory based EXACTLY on the solicitor general's arguments in the face of a court with most justices ideologically committed to destroying the law defines bordering on "incompetence".

Donald Verrilli Jr. got the victory.

Well, good to see that you went from saying Obama is a liar, to saying that he has bad representatives, even if both are untrue.

 

uhh, more nonsense. Discussions with you seem to be wars of attrition wading through off topic tangents and impromptu snarky remarks with little to no merit.

 

It's not my fault you keep on bringing up easily refutable off-topic points.

I did not bring up your personal feelings about the solicitor general's position. You can't seem to defend it when countered with any evidence.

If you want to get back to the point, how can Obama be construed as a liar by specifying clear instructions to get his legislation passed regardless of a crooked Supreme Court? And why does it even matter?

 

Link?

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/27/nation/la-na-scalia-20120627

LOLWUT

A SCOTUS justice called out the President...on a case that has NOTHING really to do with the President. His job is supposed to be to see if a bill passes constitutional muster, and not legislate from the bench. He shouldn't have to wonder about Arizona's citizens being "under siege", unless it has some application to the constitutionality of the law.

Legislators by proxy. bleh.