So rather than address the issue linked to, you're just going to slip into typical lefty ad hominem in order to avoid the substance of the matter? Yup, that's what you did.

..,pharma compnaies are "barely regulated"?

You really do have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

It's not bribery, it's a "campaign contribution"

It should be no surprise that a system run by corrupt politicians passes laws that makes corruption legal..

Of course I can ignore words. But some words matter, and some don't.

No, the numbers have turned out AT ALL. Because we haven't been given actual numbers. The numbers we got don't tell us who's paid (thus making time spent filling in an online form into an actual money-changes-hands transaction that actually insures somebody), and don't tell us how many people in that mix were the ones who had their insurance cancelled on them (roughly 6-million, so far).

So, actually, the numbers turned out pretty much right where critics said they would: abysmally low.

I think you don't understand what the word "right" means.

Should people also have a right to housing, clothing, food, climate control, utilities, and the rest, without concern for cost? Does everyone have that right? Because if you don't have those things, you could die. Just like you could by not having a "right" to the services of a podiatrist when you have achy feet.

If everyone has a right to the labor of professional medical people, and everyone has a right to the medicines, supplies, facilities, and multi-million dollar test equipment ... how does that work? We all have the right to assemble, the right to free speech, etc. The constitution protects us from government interference in such things. If we have a right to a little bit of the waking hours of a nutritionist, or the right to something that a bunch of people working in the pharma industry spent their week making, does that mean that everyone should get those things for free? Who pays? How can it be a "right" if you have to force your neighbor, on penalty of losing their wages or their home, to provide it to you? That's your idea of a right? Get a grip.

Please tell us again how Jimmy Carter wasn't elected.

Wow. You think I distorted the meaning of "elected" by pointing out the fact that Carter was elected.

You're a completely pathetic liar.

(And no, I didn't read the rest of your comment. It's a shame you spent so much time on it and no one will read it.)

You're lying. And it's obvious you're lying. Jimmy Carter is a Democrat, and he was elected as one. Barack Obama is a Democrat, and he was elected as one. They are both elected Democrats in every possible sense of the words. You're wrong. And you know you're wrong; we know this because instead of pointing to the meanings of the words, you waffled and said "no reasonable person would" use the words that way. You didn't point to the actual common definitions of the words because you know they don't back you up. You know you're wrong.

You're lying. As usual.

You're lying. I am capable of not accusing you of lying, but I choose to point out the fact that you are lying.

Bullshit. If you're lying -- which I've proven you are -- then that is necessarily a sufficient answer to the question of why I accused you of lying.

I wonder why you think that someone else pointing out the fact that you are lying is the one who looks bad.

It's really weird, but then again, it's minor compared to your other issues. Like, for example, the fact that you chose to make this discussion about very specific wording of a "challenge" that, despite repeated implicit and explicit requests, you never actually cited.

False. It's true that words have no inherent meaning, but people have meanings for those words; or, put another way, those words mean things to people. This is obviously and nearly self-evidently true, and it is also clear that you believe it to be true.

False.

And the words they use actually have consequences. The people do things through those words. In this case, they continue to disinform and polarize the electorate to strengthen their own positions. That should concern you, since it is what they do.

You're lying. Nothing I have ever said or done makes such an untrue thing in any way "apparent." You cannot even come up with a remotely reasonable argument for how that would be "apparent."

Picked sides in what? I picked sides in whether words mean things, yes, as have you, although you misstate which side you are on. I picked sides in whether I think Reid is an asshole, as you did, and you're on my side. I picked sides in whether Democrats often use false charges of racism to distract people from their own failings and valid criticisms of their policies and actions.

None of that even remotely implies that I put more importance on words than actions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2G4zkxFpBrc

So you think slandering Americans is NOT worse than NOT slandering Americans.

Oooooooo K.

You're a liar. There is no sense in which Jimmy Carter is not an elected Democrat. You're just lying ... as usual.

You're a liar. You didn't. You said "elected Democrat." You're just lying ... as usual.

And no one did. You're lying by implying "Democrat" is the same as "official" or "President."

Um. Except that definitionally, he is. Stop lying.

You're a liar.

You're a liar. And I correctly predicted you would state this lie.

Of course, that's not much different than predicting that the Earth will spin around ... liars lie, it's not tough to call it.

No. Someone who regularly gets up in front of the American people and lies about his political opponents to advance his interests or to harm the interests of his opponents ... that makes him worse. Absolutely and significantly.