Larry of the Lawn Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Seli,So, the lies are justified. The deliberately impresise language is justified?Scott, the language was exactly what it needed to be to do what it need to do. That's about as precise as something can be. See how we just both accurately described the same phenomenon as 'precise' and 'imprecise'? It's all in the context. Kind of like how the word theory means very different things in different contexts. Seli,So, the lies are justified. The deliberately impresise language is justified? They knew they needed the penalties to be a "tax" to pass constitutional muster. They knew a "tax" would sink the bill. They deliberatly mislead everyone. That is wrong. The only people who were misled are the ones that don't mind paying a fine unless it's called a tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Scot,There is nothing dishonest or untruthaul about interpretating the mandate as both a penalty and a tax.Your outrage over the various difference over interpretation of language seems puzzling given your occupation as an attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Seli,So, the lies are justified. The deliberately impresise language is justified? Of course, that's why Stephanopoulos can play back Obama's "emperor" quote to him and he doesn't bat an eye. In his mind he did nothing wrong, he did what was necessary to achieve a desirable outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 for many, outcomes are more important than processTell you what commodore, if the Republicans doesn't like it, then they can pass a comprehensive immigration bill next year. Want to bet that won't happen?How is your bitcoin investment faring these days by the way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Of course, that's why Stephanopoulos can play back Obama's "emperor" quote to him and he doesn't bat an eye. In his mind he did nothing wrong, he did what was necessary to achieve a desirable outcome. Wow, you guys are going to make me wear out my Fainting Couch before this weekend is up. Break out the smelling salts, I have some football to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Seli,So, the lies are justified. The deliberately impresise language is justified? They knew they needed the penalties to be a "tax" to pass constitutional muster. They knew a "tax" would sink the bill. They deliberatly mislead everyone. That is wrong. Since you asked your question twice, I feel justified in doing the same thing. Do these lies constitute a scandal? One that requires a Congressional Hearing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Lev,It wasn't a tax before passage but was a tax after, how is that not dishonest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Because words mean different things to voters and judges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Manhole,Since you asked your question twice, I feel justified in doing the same thing. Do these lies constitute a scandal? One that requires a Congressional Hearing?No, it does not. But it is an illustration of the political crap that is seen as acceptable in DC. Does this doublespeak and lieing make you feel better about the Democratic Party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 for many, outcomes are more important than processKnew I left someone else"Death Panels" and "Government Hands Off my Medicare".Process or Outcome? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Larry,Because words mean different things to voters and judges.Huh? Please unpack that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Manhole,No, it does not. But it is an illustration of the political crap that is seen as acceptable in DC. Does this doublespeak and lieing make you feel better about the Democratic Party? No, I don't care for it. I would prefer that the Dems seperate themselves from their Republican counterparts. That being said, I do believe this particular example falls into an end justifies the means sort of a box. I don't like it, but framing this as a "scandal" is patently ridiculous. A complete waste of time and taxpayer's money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Lev,It wasn't a tax before passage but was a tax after, how is that not dishonest?Because a penalty is also a tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 You asked how was it not dishonest to call it a tax after passage, but not before. Because voters wouldn't mind paying, they just can't think of it as a tax. They didn't mind thinking of it as the Individual Mandate or as a fine. But for it to hold up legally, it had to be a tax. Because a tax means one thing to voters and another to the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Lev,Because a penalty is also a tax.Then they were lieing when they refused to acknowlege it was, in fact, a tax.Larry,So, it isn't dishonest to refuse to call something a tax, that they knew would have to be a tax to pass Constitutional muster after passage, and when they were specifically asked if it was a tax? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Lev,Then they were lieing when they refused to acknowlege it was, in fact, a tax. What's the difference Scot? Seriously? Other than the fact that some people fixate on the word tax where they have no problem paying a fine or a penalty? Is being aware of that weird obsession dishonest? Does it change the actual nature of the money you have to pay if you don't have insurance? Absolutely not, other than the name you fill in on the "Pay to the Order of" line on the check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Larry,That's absurdly reductionist. They lied in the lead up to the vote because a "tax" wouldn't pass. Or they lied when changed their tune afterwards to get it past the Court. They lied either before or after. Scandel, no, sad and pathetic, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Notorious Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Scot,No, a penalty implies taxation obligation. Keep spinning though. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Lev,I'm not spinning. If it was a tax it should have been openly acknowledged as such during the run up to the vote. Refusing to acknowledge a tax as a tax insisting it be called a "fine" instead of a "tax" is dishonest.It doesn't bother you at all that they refused to call the mandate penalties a tax before passage but insisted it was one after passage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted November 23, 2014 Share Posted November 23, 2014 Lev,I'm not spining. If it was a tax it should have been openly acknowledged as such during the run up to the vote. Refusing to acknowledge a tax as a tax insisting it be called a "fine" instead of a "tax" is dishonest. In the face of "Obama is going to kill your Grandma" level lies, it doesn't even move the needle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.