Is there a Republican candidate you like?

[Clinton Huxley]

They all look like cunts. As a useful heuristic, if you assume any Republican or Tory is a cunt, you will be right 999,999 times out of a million. I'll take those odds.

Ron Paul is one in a million

Sounds like the cue for a song....

[Ian]

They all look like cunts. As a useful heuristic, if you assume any Republican or Tory is a cunt, you will be right 999,999 times out of a million. I'll take those odds.

Ron Paul is one in a million

Sorta like the percentage of serial killers in the population.

Coincidence?

[Tyrannical]

They all look like cunts. As a useful heuristic, if you assume any Republican or Tory is a cunt, you will be right 999,999 times out of a million. I'll take those odds.

Ron Paul is one in a million

Sorta like the percentage of serial killers in the population.

Coincidence?

Then as an OBGYN baby doctor he is at about negative 4,000 with his body count.

Oh, and he used to treat medicaid patients for free because he refused to take Federal money. When he took on a partner, no abortions and no accepting federal money was his requirement. And he had to treat the non-paying patients exactly the same as the paying ones. You don't run into integrity like that except as one in a million.

[Schneibster]

- You have ignored my explanation as to why we do not have a market based health care system.

Right, because you failed to prove it. That's what all those "irrelevant" and "untrue" markers mean.

Stop squirming. I have to tell you I consider this impolite.

[Schneibster]

I'm quite disappointed in you, Andrew. You've already moved far off the reservation, and I showed how; you're making irrelevant and untrue claims, and failing to back them up. Now you're practicing sopistry to try to get out of admitting it. I'm not going to bother responding to that for long.

First, the good:

- You are correct though that I misspoke regarding the health insurance laws. The government simply provides a tax incentive where it is cheaper for the company to provide you health insurance than give you the money it would have spent on your coverage. While this effectively renders not providing health insurance through employment an outlier case for full time employees, it is not specifically mandated (well not until 2014 at least.) I misspoke and listed a strong incentive as a requirement, good call.

In fact, many younger employees weren't accepting it. As a result, they didn't pay into the system; and as a result of that, they wound up in the emergency room, getting care that costs fifty times as much because it's emergency care. And because they're young, their salaries aren't high, and so they can't afford to pay fifty times as much for their healthcare.

You're completely ignoring the implications of being wrong here. Pretending they don't exist. I'll show that more below.

- Pointing out that there were significant assumptions I was making in how the tax rate would be increased in my $200,000 or more example. I should have stated those explicitly.

This is old and easy stuff. That's a lie that's been being told a long time. You didn't invent it; you just believed it when you heard it because of your ideological stance. Believing things when you hear them, without checking, because they agree with your ideology, is a bad mistake. I've been skooled on that many times.

Now the bad:

- You have ignored my explanation as to why we do not have a market based health care system.

Yes, because it was riddled with falsehoods and irrelevancies. Which I pointed out, in detail.

If explaining how such a system came into being is Irrelevant, then I would like to know what constitutes valid evidence.

I said we have a market based healthcare system, and it's not working. How is how it started relevant to proving either of those wrong? You're attempting to shift the burden of proof.

Related to this is that you then went on to say that the system has failed, restating that it's the failure of the market.

I did not. I said it failed. I pointed to the large number of uninsured. You're attempting to change the subject.

If (as I've stated) we don't have a market driven system,

There isn't any "if." All you've done so far is prove that you can't prove I'm wrong; you are now in the process of proving you don't have the balls to admit it.

then its failure is not a reflection of the failure of market driven health care.

Since the "if" isn't, the "then" isn't either. Burden of proof is yours. You said it. You ain't proved it.

- Your refutation of my false analogy is hilarious as you pull out the part that actually explains why it's a false analogy and respond to it, by asserting that all regulation is logically equivalent.

You're confounding the fact that it's irrelevant with the fact that your supposed refutation is ignoring the point that it's deregulation. Your argument was it's a false analogy; I first showed that that argument is irrelevant, and then showed it's untrue, and you never mentioned deregulation or responded to that point, and now you're trying to pretend you did by confounding the two separate points to create a strawman.

- In the Middle East example, you're intentionally arguing against a straw man. As if pulling out of the middle East automatically means closing our embassies there.

No, it's not. The title: "Allow Israel and Palestine to solve their own problems." It's on his web site. This is untrue.

Furthermore, I said nothing about closing embassies. So that also is untrue.

Now I know you're just being dishonest in your debate style.

This is an insult and I require an apology.

- Then you take my paragraph dealing with tax loop holes and break it down into so many pieces, that yes they do seem irrelevant when you rip them out of their context.

You're ignoring that they are all untrue. Whether they are irrelevant or not, or whether it's broken down into pieces or not, or in context or not, is irrelevant to whether they're untrue.

Of course one could keep in mind that I wasn't even stating that there was anything wrong with your previous statement (and said as much) and was voicing my own concerns and thought on the correct solution to the issue.

So? I was objecting to those concerns and thoughts, and specifically showed that they were untrue. You're attempting to change the subject again.

However you've approached it like it was a counter argument and simply call everything you disagree with irrelevant, with no consistency or understanding or what the word actually means.

Untrue. I called them untrue; that they're also irrelevant and I also called them so is irrelevant to whether they're untrue or not. You're still trying to change the subject.

You know, by your standards I could have called your claim that raising taxes on the rich was irrelevant to the discussion of Social Security as Social Security is funded through it's own means, rather than by general taxation. I didn't do that because I'm not a dick and recognized that you might be implying that Social Security could be made solvent by subsidizing it with general taxation funds.

If the first sentence made any sense, I'd try to respond to it. I am not aware of implying that Social Security could be made solvent by subsidizing it with income tax funds (there is no "general taxation," it's all for specific purposes, income tax, FICA, Medicare). I was implying it could be made solvent by getting rid of the limit on the amount of income FICA is withheld on.

- Are you really claiming that giving millionaires, billionaires, and corporations tax brakes, through loopholes that complicate the tax code, SAVES the government money?! I would love to see your evidence there.

Already presented. You ignored it.

- You make a blatant appeal to authority to avoid bringing forth an actual economic argument for why the bailouts needed to happen, and restate that it's a question only someone ignorant or economics would ask. Circular logic to protect a sacred cow perhaps?

First, this is another insult for which an apology will be required. Second,

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... GVhIHGyWRM

Cochrane says he now represents a minority viewpoint among Chicago’s business faculty. He says Diamond, who declined to sign the petition, holds a majority view, which posits financial institutions must be rescued and regulated.

That article was written in 2008, after the election but before the inauguration. At that time, already, freshwater economists were calling the bailouts necessary. Apparently, the freshwater economists are now regretting claiming that the bailout was wrong. They're regretting their petition against it, that all the Libertardians point to as "evidence." They admitted they're wrong. Why can't you?

I don't have to publish saltwater economics proof unless you know nothing about saltwater economics, and if you don't, WTF are you doing telling me whether the authorities I'm appealing to are actually authorities or not? Because if you don't know that, you've got no fucking idea. Simple as that.

To put it bluntly, it's not "just being super honest" when you don't apply the same standards of evidence and integrity to yourself that you demand from others. It's just called being a dick.

And a third insult.

You've got a long way to go, young padawan. A long, long way.

[Schneibster]

They all look like cunts. As a useful heuristic, if you assume any Republican or Tory is a cunt, you will be right 999,999 times out of a million. I'll take those odds.

Ron Paul is one in a million

Yep. Wrong every time.

[Drewish]

Schneibster, we are done here. Declare yourself the victor as I'm sure you will. You've demonstrated clearly to me that there's no use in talking to you.

[Schneibster]

Then as an OBGYN baby doctor he is at about negative 4,000 with his body count.

Perfect illustration.

You just tried to pretend delivering babies makes up for serial killings.

Typical Libertardian; thinks a human life is worth money.

[Schneibster]

Schneibster, we are done here. Declare yourself the victor as I'm sure you will. You've demonstrated clearly to me that there's no use in talking to you.

I still have yet to find a Libertardian who's intellectually honest.

ETA: Or knows jack-shit about economics. Or even understands why not knowing jack-shit about economics is a disqualifier for national politics.

[Warren Dew]

Oh, and he used to treat medicaid patients for free because he refused to take Federal money. When he took on a partner, no abortions and no accepting federal money was his requirement. And he had to treat the non-paying patients exactly the same as the paying ones. You don't run into integrity like that except as one in a million.

This is precisely why the progressive Democrats hate him: he refuses to be a part of their corrupt system.

[Drewish]

Gary Johnson is doing a live web interview discussion now http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I like Wendell Willkie.

[Warren Dew]

I like Wendell Willkie.

About as relevant as Gary Johnson in this election.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I like Wendell Willkie.

About as relevant as Gary Johnson in this election.

Last one I liked. He worked for FDR after the election. He also proclaimed loudly that he was not an isolationist.

[maiforpeace]

Gary Johnson is doing a live web interview discussion now http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

I'd watch but Real Time with Bill Maher is almost on.