Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Isn't it just grand to read things in a manner where you see only what you want to see, rather than what someone really wrote? That way, you can argue whichever point you want, regardless of anything, put words in the mouths of others, and try to get away with shifting the focus.

I think you're getting our debating styles confused.

Originally Posted by smc

1. I NEVER, EVER used the word "only" where you ascribe it to me.

Granted, you didn't say only, but you did say "Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court." I didn't see anyone else in your list of who considers it unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by smc

As for the opinion of the American people, it is an acknowledged fact among all serious followers of politics that the polls on this issue are heavily influenced as much by how the debate has been framed by partisan messengers, or how some have failed to frame the debate, as anything else. This is typical with such polls. Reasonable people can reasonably conclude that the poll you cite is no different than all the polls showing that people who opposed ALL government involvement in healthcare before the Affordable Care Act was passed were also highly like to agree with the statement "Keep your government hands off of my Medicare."

I think reasonable people would be able to see that the poll includes groups other than those who oppose ALL government involvement in healthcare and that Democrats also think that forcing all Americans to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I think you're getting our debating styles confused.

Translation: "I will just imply that smc did what I did, and hope that it will confuse everyone and make it seem like a non-issue. Truth be damned!" -- Tracy Coxx

(Yes, and before you go accusing me of putting words in your mouth so as to deflect the discussion once again away from the real issue, I acknowledge that this is a rhetorical device I am using.)

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Granted, you didn't say only, but you did say "Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court." I didn't see anyone else in your list of who considers it unconstitutional.

Translation: "I wonder how it will work if instead of addressing the real substance of what smc wrote, which he has now stated more than once, I keep up this same line and try to avoid answering the point about the subjectivity of determining the 'constitutionality' of something?" -- TracyCoxx

(Again, before you go accusing me of putting words in your mouth so as to deflect the discussion once again away from the real issue, I acknowledge that this is a rhetorical device I am using.)

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I think reasonable people would be able to see that the poll includes groups other than those who oppose ALL government involvement in healthcare and that Democrats also think that forcing all Americans to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

Translation: "Hey, maybe it can work again? I will avoid the substantive point smc makes about how the terms of debate influence polls, and just restate my earlier point. That way, people will think I'm actually discussing when I'm not." -- TracyCoxx

(For a third time, before you go accusing me of putting words in your mouth so as to deflect the discussion once again away from the real issue, I acknowledge that this is a rhetorical device I am using.)

You really do display tremendous cowardice when it comes to debating. Perhaps you should run for public office ... you'd fit right in with most candidates of both major parties.

(And just to be clear, before you go whining to others about how you've been insulted, I characterized your debating style, not you.)

[TracyCoxx]

Translation of your translations: I'm going to read things in a manner where I see only what I want to see, rather than what TracyCoxx really wrote. That way, I can argue whichever point I want, regardless of anything, put words in the mouths of others, and try to get away with shifting the focus.

Let's cut the crap. Do you really think anyone believes you're accurately paraphrasing my position? Do you really believe they haven't noticed that you're dodging the discussion again .

We're off topic and back on to familiar whining territory. Let me know when you're ready to discuss things reasonably.

And now for your predictable response complaining of dodging, sophistry etc to which I'll say seriously... Back on topic.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Translation of your translations: I'm going to read things in a manner where I see only what I want to see, rather than what TracyCoxx really wrote. That way, I can argue whichever point I want, regardless of anything, put words in the mouths of others, and try to get away with shifting the focus.

Let's cut the crap. Do you really think anyone believes you're accurately paraphrasing my position? Do you really believe they haven't noticed that you're dodging the discussion again .

We're off topic and back on to familiar whining territory. Let me know when you're ready to discuss things reasonably.

And now for your predictable response complaining of dodging, sophistry etc to which I'll say seriously... Back on topic.

Yes, back on topic. Go back to what I wrote about the subjectivity of determining the "constitutionality" of something and respond to it. Otherwise, quit your bullshitting and admit that you changed the subject, not me.