No. I am absolutely serious. He did not propose it.

Obama was left with no other choice than to embrace this steaming pile of failure. He knew that there was absolutely no chance of any other bill relating in the least to health care ever making it to his desk again. He either signed this conservative piece of garbage into law or went down in history as the guy who campaigned for health care reform and then subsequently vetoed a health care bill.

This is not in any way splitting hairs. The person i replied to falsely claimed that it was proposed by Obama. The fact that he signed it does not mean he proposed it. The fact that - by way of fox news et al - it came to be associated with his name also does not mean he proposed it.

By your same logic WWII was caused by FDR because he was president when we entered it.

I noticed you neglected to use the term "written". Perhaps you at least are aware of the contribution to writing that was made by the republicans, who subsequently protested against it only out of their desire to do everything possible to tarnish the legacy of the democrat at 1600 Pennsylvania?

That said, everyone in DC (with the sole exception of Bernie Sanders) is owned by the insurance industry. it just so happened that at this time the bailout was able to pass without republicans voting for it. If they were needed then the industry would have forced them to vote for it as well.

... and he'll likely go down the same way. It doesn't matter how good he looks in a suit eventually he'll trip up and his handlers won't be ready to catch him. Just because he's spent most of his "adult" life as a politician doesn't mean he's ready for what's ahead. You'll be supporting Jeb in a matter of months.

Which is different from before how? Not at all, of course. Just because they brought the requirement for "insured employee" down from 40 to 30 doesn't mean things changed much for the chronically underemployed.

Being as you didn't demonstrate having actually read it yourself - based on the fact that you kept quoting other peoples' analyses instead of analyzing it yourself - you don't have a leg to stand on for that, either. I am familiar with the document; the goal was to familiarize you with it so you would stop lying about knowing it. It seems you - perhaps in one of your goalpost-moving routines - set that a while back as a goal too far.

And yet you are trying to get the federal government to impose laws to limit what Massachusetts - or any of its jurisdictions - can pass for themselves when you don't like those laws.

Pretty much, that. Do I owe you a thanks for supporting my initial argument with your alternate-reality parable at the end of your post?

Discarding my previous statement as if I never made it doesn't make it cease to exist. Let's review what I said, shall we?

Naturally the conservative bend on slashdot wants to leave people to assume that this money would be handed out to inner city drug-dealing / pimping high school dropouts to encourage them to have 12 more kids. The reality that slashdot couldn't be bothered to share is that the money would go to infrastructure. Whie conservatives like to claim that "the incoming tide raises all ships" and other such bullshit, infrastructure is a government responsibility in the rest of the industrialized world. We need to get our infrastructure up to snuff to keep our country relevant in the modern era. The conservatives deny this, which makes it a liberal matter - just like climate change, health care, education, space exploration, scientific research, and diplomacy.

OSHA came about when the labor movement was still strong in this country, which is why even the conservative President Nixon had to sign it into existence. Had organized labor not existed prior to then, what incentive would there have been to create OSHA at all?

And furthermore, you generally despise the federal government (at least, any time that you don't have your guy in the white house), so why are you suggesting that you wouldn't hate OSHA? I fully expect it would be on your list of departments to axe; it was almost certainly on Rick Perry's (we can't be sure since he couldn't remember his list during his debate).

Funny thing here, you are still free to work more than 40 hours if you want. If your employer doesn't want to pay you overtime you are free to go find a second job to put those extra hours into.

Thank you for the clarification. Glad to see you hate almost all government employees equally.

I guess it's been about a week since you last plugged that, so go ahead and get it in. Do the Koch Brothers give you a kickback for getting eyes to that site?

You don't really have an argument to stand upon for that one. Your last JE on the manifesto was far more a meta-analysis where you told us about your favorite conservative reviews of the text and said almost nothing on the text itself.

For starters that accusation is 100% removed from reality or facts. Second, that is completely non sequitur. But keep on working to move those goal posts, you have made quite a hobby of it and I'd hate to force you to give it up.

In what way? Was our young country truly so lawless that people routinely had to take the law into their own hands because the people who lived here were so atrociously uncivilized that there was violence on the streets as an everyday occurrence in every town?

Can you tell me of a case where someone needed a giant clip of ammo for self defense? The closest that any federal act has come to being a "gungrabber" in the past 20 years has been to regulate the size of ammunition clips. If large clips were truly important for self defense, then by your own logic the restrictions on them should have caused law abiding citizens to start dropping like flies in every city in the country as they get maliciously gunned down in broad daylight by criminals with giant illegal clips.

That is truly fascinating revisionist history, there.

Obama did not propose this law. Congress wrote it and he signed it, but he did not propose it. He proposed having a single-payer option, but congress refused to allow it to even be an option. It was initially called "Obamacare" by fox news and other such "news" sources, and eventually after enough repetition the name stuck.

Actually, it's worse than that. It is the largest corporate handout in the history of government.

Horseshit? Yeah. Liberal? Not in the least.

Which is probably why, in response to the number of automobile fatalities, we have made cars safer, more expensive, more regulated, and generally more restrictive to own. With guns we have essentially done the opposite. Hell, while we have the weakest DUI laws in the industrialized world, the laws for using a car while intoxicated are still more severe than the laws for using a firearm while intoxicated.

None of his liberal proposals have become law to date. Now he's just trying to pretend to be a liberal so we won't pin the conservative laws that he has signed on his presidential legacy.

Well, you do make moving the goalposts look exhausting. I haven't tried it myself but I think I'll opt for continuing to directly address text instead.