... but I've had a LOT of fun posting the link to it into replies on SO many blogsite discussions!
:)

No one who really thought about it thought "you can keep it" meant you would be able to buy the same plan for the same price but without underwriting. That was obvious salesmaker's exaggeration. Any reasonable person would know eliminating underwriting, by definition, means a cheaper product for high-risk people and a more expensive product for low-risk people.

Let's not discuss in this thread how bad President Obama was to use this questionable sales tactic.

Instead, I question the whole notion of liberals and conservatives having particular ideologies, and I certainly reject that idea that one side is based on the desire to arbitrarily change the rules. In the 90s I naively believed Democrats that reducing Medicare payments to shore up the program was actually destroying the program. Twenty years later the parties reversed their positions. Democrats cut payments for their healthcare initiative, and Republicans warned it threatened the Medicare system. I do not believe they follow an ideology anymore.

Not necessarily. The government provides the required training for that older child to quickly learn that welfare or a deadbeat government jobs are viable alternatives. The government also trains them to qualify for disability, sometimes by relaxing their bladder muscles in a psychiatrist's office - that is only required once a year, and the benefits keep rolling...

Well, they hi-jacked the term "liberal" for starters. I refuse to apply the term to statists.

Get a life, the RINO's do the same thing: you heard it on CNN, it is all Clinton's fault and the list goes on

That is an excellent summary of liberal thinking and behavior

I learned 2 careers ago that a "loser" will always shift the blame to someone else, and accept the credit for himself when thing go well. On the other hand, A "winner" will stand up and say, "I messed this up, it will never happen again!'. And of course, When accepting accolades he extends the credit to everyone else in the organization. These traits combine to make all of the 8 things happen in degrees.

Id' like to see a graph of Koch Bros. contributions vs Dread King Soros contributions.

I have my assumptions what that graph would look like, but I would like confirmation.

Every child is born a socialist. The child receives all his needs from others, gives nothing back and one of the first conscious words that a child utters and then continuously repeats is - "mine!" As a child grows up and is given tasks to perform, takes risks and learns about responsibility, he matures into an adult who appreciates individual liberties, which are based on the pride of individual achievements. But what if that child is never really given any responsibilities and has no achievements and no pride? What if that child stays a child? The government schools today do not teach responsibility, individual achievement is spread across the group and pride of achievement does not exist because there is no real achievement. So a socialist, who has never grown up, solidifies and expects the society to continue to nourish him. Worse, by not trusting himself to achieve anything, he does not trust his fellow men to be capable of individual achievement either. That is why the socialists' "arguments" are not really logical arguments, but more resemble childish discourses and that is why logic cannot possibly work with them - they are not mature enough to understand logic. They understand and respond to emotions, exaggerations, threats and force, just like any child.

It is true that logical fallacies can crop up in any philosophical argument. Here's my hypothesis why: You are bound to get tripped up by your own words when your political ideology is based on your own desire to change the rules whenever it suits you!

That's the biggest problem I have with liberals: the sheer hypocrisy. Their guiding ideal is simply "I get to change the rules when it is convenient to me and you should just ignore everything I said up to this point." It's also the primary reason why liberals make such terrible policy decisions. They have the most convenient amnesia and even when directly confronted with lies such as "if you want to keep your healthcare plan you can keep it" they make excuses as to why what they said doesn't really mean what they said.

That's why I can at least have a discussion with conservatives and libertarians: they have a principle which can be discussed and debated without constantly having to go back and tell the other that they can't change the rules halfway through a debate.

Good.
Caution when reading- do not confuse the Nobel Peace Prize with the Nobel Prize.
Many winners are undoubtedly worthy. Maybe I am getting old and grumpy but to me the standard has dropped from around 1979.
I found item 5 useful - the list of political contributors. Kock v. labor unions. I'd like to see the other big private sources listed.
What I'd like to see is suggested responses to each of the 8, one liners on the level of the
pseudo-point made.

good question. I like that button.

edit: there it is! yes! no longer do I have to type "typos" to explain why I'm editing.

What happened to our edit button??

IT was always comes back around to scurvy!

and scurvy!

All the stuff about logical fallacies is true, but to assign it to one ideology is nonsense. These are common logical fallacies that crop up everywhere.

and eye patch

with removable hook