--voice of experience
To get back to the point, you keep lying when you claim that your favorite congressional critters are proposing HIIBA replacements that somehow significantly differ from HIIBA.
Serious question: how do you argue one can "keep lying" when you haven't even defined "somehow significantly differ"?
To the extent that this is all politics, and it's really all one Progressive Party with Demmican and Republocrat wings, there is some basis to reject the noise and call for actual Federalist reform, stripping power from Leviathan.
As I have argued, and you seem to crave pretending it's all a 17th Amendment quibble.
I speculate that the need to say other people are "lying" is an effort to stir the adrenaline and preclude actual analysis, amIright?
...And you keep presenting it the same way. And it keeps falling apart the same way, for the same reasons. Funny how reality doesn't just bend to your will.
So, that was me. And then I say
Maybe your replies are feckless.
And then you say
I think there was a topic, but you again turned it to be about me. If I had more of an ego to me I'd probably be honored in how quickly you abandoned the topic to talk about me instead, but that's not how I roll.
So you make it about me, and I push back, and then you get all hair-shirt about the topic. Or your coolness, there just is no end. None.
your rather malignant superstitions
Hey, that's not bigotry: that's freedom of speech!
What it offers to you is the power of distraction. You're still a political fanatic and idolator, or at least that is what you post, nothing but dogma, propaganda, and false gods.
What is a "political idolator"? I know what each word means distinctly, but you're in a fresh dimension trying to run them together.
Having personally supported and defended the Constitution in a non-theocratic sort of way, I sincerely can't figure out what you mean. Or is your #Derper full and in need of a change?
So I had the time line slightly off
In fairness, your argument is only as bollocky as the rest of your arguments, so, sure.
You are trying to lie about what you yourself have written about before. Don't be ridiculous. Your own JE some time ago linked to the Heritage Foundation saying that a mandate would be needed.
Wait: what, specifically, am I lying about? You say "your candidates" as though it were meaningful. I guess it is, if you're building another of your Towers of Babel of something. It's as though you may get the same sexual release from the word "lying" that the blow-dried nitwits in the newsroom seem to get out of saying "lockdown".
You have repeatedly shown admiration for proposed "alternatives" that are the same damned bill
Can you please be specific about what piece of legislation you're talking about? As long as I am "lying" about something, it would be kinda helpful to know what it is.
Or is the point of trotting out the "L" verb to rile me?
And we all thank dog that Social Security wasn't just handed off to Wall Street
There are those who'd prefer just to walk away. You know it's a scam when you can't, no?
What this country needs is a dime that will buy a good five-cent bagel.