For him to make anyone look bad, he'd have to:

• Stop intentionally, or carelessly, misrepresenting the facts nearly all the time
• Refer to actual points much more often, instead of the norm, which is to attack straw men and introduce red herrings
• Admit when he's wrong, which is very often
• Stop demonizing people for merely disagreeing

None of that seems likely.

Odd. You think that me saying the same things that I say very, very often -- weekly, at least, for many years -- is ... rare.

You know that's self-refuting, right?

Shrug. Since I didn't read the comments in question, I am feeling no pain. But I suspect if I had, I also wouldn't.

The fact that he resorts to lies in the first sentence of each comment implies otherwise.

You're lying. I did no such thing.

I didn't pick one comment: I read only the first one, and then gave up when you lied about what I wrote. And you're doing it again, so again, I won't continue reading.

I didn't say there was. I said the restrictions are arbitrary. I was explicit.

I can't bother to read past your first idiotic comment.

False. It is removing arbitrary restrictions on business. This is about the free market.

Irrelevant. Not my problem. We are freeing the market. Adapt or die.

Anything you say next is false. I am forcing nothing. Neither is the government. If they are forced to do anything, it is by free market forces.

Everyone, except for those relying on government to protect their interests against the reasonable interests of others, and I have no sympathy for such people.

I didn't go off-topic at all.

So? I wonder why you think you're making a point.

I do not recognize the "right" of any government to ban the sale of a legal product or service.

Even if that is true -- it's not -- it's irrelevant.

This is not a huge issue for me: while it is absolutely clear that laws restricting the sale of legal goods and services are stupid and harmful, it would have far less of an impact on freeing of the health market than much more sensible and broad legislation: to remove the business subsidies for health insurance, and replace it with an individual income tax credit, which will necessarily have the effect of driving down -- massively -- the cost of care and insurance.

In many areas, yes. I hope you don't think you're arguing against me in some way.

So what? Seriously. If a small business can't handle the free market, then it should go away. That's not a bad thing, it's a good thing, and the worst of all worlds is a government that keeps burdensome or expensive regulations around just to make sure businesses that rely on those regulations don't suffer.

Yup. Too many people confuse minimum income with basic income/negative income tax.The latter two are what economists generally recommend because of incentives and easy of management.

Basic income and negative income tax are nearly economically equivalent (with different tax scales). But basic income is probably the better solution of the two. The problem with the negative income tax is that taxing happens on a yearly basis, while income works better on a monthly basis (and even that is overestimating the judgment of some people). So you really want something to fix the general disconnect.

And the absolutely easiest way is to simply pay out a basic income to every adult on a monthly basis while withholding taxes for the IRS. The IRS then doing its normal work on a yearly basis.

Yes, we've seen your fallacious "it has to be presented on the floor to matter" argument. But we've already shown that the Republicans have done that, and when they have, the Democrats and media ridiculed them for wasting time presenting a bill that wouldn't pass the Senate.

So a. it has been on the floor, and b. you assholes complain if it is on the floor, and if it is not. So, c. Profit!

True, Ace did incorrectly say this didn't help the poor. However, that's about the only "good" (and I use the term loosely, because the help it provided came in a wrong form and in a wrong way) thing that the ACA did. By far, the ACA has done and continues to do more harm than good, and this was its design, and we knew it from the beginning. We knew millions could, and likely would, lose the insurance plans they liked. We knew many would lose their doctors. We knew prices would continue to increase, and that many would have to pay a lot more money because they were forced to buy services they didn't want and didn't need.

We also knew that we could have found other ways -- that didn't make insurance policies worse for millions of people -- to help the people who didn't have insurance, and, to some extent due to that fact, didn't have good medical care, including simply raising taxes to pay for Medicaid expansion. I'd choose that over increasing the cost and scope of health insurance, and massively increasing government control over the industry.

The final thing we've known all along that I'll mention is that Obama has been lying about this from the beginning. He knew his promise that people would get to keep their coverage was false, when he said it (I know this simply because, without talking to any experts, *I* knew it, through simple deduction; it's inconceivable that he didn't know it, as he isn't a dummy and has lots of experts to talk to, and all of them knew it).

He also continues to lie every day, saying Republicans want people to not have health care, or that anyone has gotten health care for the first time in their lives because of the ACA. Both of those lies are insane. There's not a serious way to make either of them into even plausibly true. But he keeps saying this shit anyway.

As to the latter, not a single person ever has gotten health care for the first time due to the ACA, unless you're going to make the case that because of the ACA, some couples had babies that they otherwise wouldn't have had. Otherwise you're SOL on this claim: every single person in the U.S. not only had access to health care before the ACA existed, but actually got health care, even if it was self-care. This is part of the fundamental conceit of Obama and his policies: you equate two different things (health insurance vs. health care) and convince people that without the former, the latter doesn't exist, and make the case that only government can provide the former, and hence, the latter. It's insanely stupid, but I guess it works on a lot of people.

You're lying. I made no such statement.

Pull the other one.

No source was provided, in fact. Since he didn't provide a source, and neither did you, I'll stop reading this comment now.

I am completely shocked that you refuse to present a case, just as he so refused.

Such as?

You're obviously lying. Why?

I'd ask you to quote me doing this, but I know you won't bother to try, because you know you can't, because I never did. All I said is that they opposed the ACA, when he falsely claimed otherwise. I am gratified, though, that you -- an anonymous coward who is friends with the leftists here -- see being opposed to the ACA as being saintly. That speaks well of you, at least.

I do wonder what you hope to gain by lying, though. Are you like damn_registrars, merely hoping that by telling a lot of obvious lies, he's being clever?