…when compared with your defense of The Newt, with regard to the Individual Mandate.

The former is dwarfed by the latter, both in clarity and in import.

It means that the ONLY reason is the reason you stated to the exclusion of all other potential reasons.

You and Clinton play games with words like “is” and “only”

Just admit you didn’t mean the word “only” and the argument is over.

Otherwise, I accuse you of using the word “only”—something you can’t truthly denu

Do you have any idea how many laws go to the intent of a person? Ever hear of a crime called murder? Treason? Theft? Assault?

Just curious if you are familiar with such laws. As it turns out, the entire criminal justice system is based on a concept call mens rea—criminal intent.

How can recognizing legal concepts that even the most libertarian of libertarian make me a statist? Why not just argue the point instead of trying to label me a statist?

You complain that I focus on the actual words you use, but you ignore what I say. Doesn’t a discussion require both sides to pay attention to what the other party actually says?

Second, Newt’s “mandate” as you well know consists of the person communicating that they will be responsible for the costs of care. That is option #3 (option #2 was a bond).

Newt has so many legitimate weaknesses—why you insist to always to these questionable points is puzzling.

A private practice physician who doesn’t accept any insurance operates within the principles of free-market capitalism. They set their own fee schedule.

Those who accept any form of insurance at all operate within a hybrid system, because of the manner in which both payment for services and private health insurance is regulated.

…as opposed to that of JSob.

that only Rush saved me from believing.

I have no problem with “others [who] have different opinions and views”. Quite the contrary, I like having such discussions, and I do it often (on blogs, on phone, email, and in person, all with friends and strangers alike). Of course, the key is that I do it with people who actually listen and respond to arguments (as I do with theirs), not people who confuse everything as you do (or who just pretend to do so in order to avoid a real discussion and just continue spewing whatever you want to spew).

But the unfortunate thing about some on political blogs is that they combine this inability or unwillingness to engage in intelligent, rational discussion with a really, really big mouth, as if constantly responding with a (probably false) air of confidence in rejecting someone’s assertion were some substitute for strong argumentation. That’s when I am sometimes less than saintly and I call them out on their inability or unwillingness to make sense and respond in a relevant, logical, sensible way.

But I don’t have much interest in further discussing you or me. I suggest we just avoid discussion with each other. I’ll at least generally refrain from replying to your comments, perhaps with some exceptions (e.g., if you say something I think it’s important for people to know is wrong).

…if you’re willing to support Romney over Gingrich and Perry, you are defending flip-floppers. I have commented elsewhere that I consider Romney’s work at Bain Capital to be immoral and scandalous. Obviously we have very different worldviews–and you justify my comments about you defending flip-flopping panderers while insulting Perry for far less than you support. I call that hypocrisy, and as a result your own ad hominem attacks on Gekster and I (and indeed, on anyone who calls you out) is rather disingenuous. Please take the beam out of your own eyes before you go picking at the specks in other people’s eyes, lest you beclown yourself and take away all credibility.

You guys are really showing an inability or unwillingness to think clearly.

This is so simple.

He was in favor of abortion legality in case of rape (or incest).

Yesterday he announced he now opposes abortion legality in case of rape (or incest).

That is a flip of position. Not on abortion generally, but on abortion in those cases.

He made this change of position a week before the Iowa caucuses, which he is desperate to win, and while positioning himself with a strong appeal to social conservatives.

The reason he gave for a change on this long-held (I presume) position was that he met a woman whose conception resulted from rape who told him she felt her life had worth.

His flip of position was either sincere or not.

I suspect not, because of the political convenience and the absurdity of his reason. I mean, after all his years in politics holding the position he held, he suddenly changes because he discovers something that he never thought was possible: that someone conceived as a result of rape might feel his/her life has worth??

If that’s actually what happened — i.e., if his flip was sincere — then he has a weak and/or lazy mind. I mean, it really didn’t occur to him in all those years that someone resulting from rape might feel his/her life has worth??

In any case, to have had the position he had, IF, like most with that position, he opposed abortion generally because he believed an infant/fetus was a person with the same right to life as any other person, then he held an illogical (internally inconsistent) position, which again reflects weak thinking. I could check on his rhetoric on the subject to confirm that assumption, but it doesn’t seem worthwhile, given how utterly impenetrable you two have been to reason on this matter, and given that it isn’t even my main point. The real indication of a weak/lazy mind in the “sincere flip” scenario is that he hadn’t thought of someone who resulted from rape thinking his/her life had worth, and now that he’s aware of that possibility, he flips his position.

The “rational analysis” you think and others offered was no such thing. All you did was offer up some vague, generic talk about someone over time coming to a more consistent position on the overall abortion issue. I responded with explanation as to why that doesn’t work for this case.

I think anyone with at least some common sense and at least some objectivity and honesty would be at least somewhat suspicious that he has flipped his position for political gain, and would also think that, if his flip was sincere, it reflects weak and/or lazy thinking over many years (or the small possibility that he flips positions fairly easily based on emotion). And that’s not even to mention the aforementioned (likely) lack of logic in his previous position.

If you’re whole point is that it doesn’t amount to a “flip” — that “flip” is too strong a word — because it wasn’t a flip on abortion overall (as with Romney) — well, it was a shift from one side of an important policy question to the opposite side. I call that a flip. That policy question is: If a woman is pregnant as the result of rape or incest, should she have the legal option of killing the embryo/fetus? For years his answer was “Yes”. Yesterday he flipped that to “No.” If you guys think that the matter of whether or not it should be legal for someone in that situation to deliberately kill an embryo or fetus — an “unborn child” with an equal right to life in the view of many — is some small detail, not worthy of the word “flip” because it’s just some minor matter of “clarification”, I beg to differ. Whatever position one has on that matter, I hardly think it’s so minor as to be almost an afterthought, just a minor detail that one has ironed out. If one thinks a woman should have that option, I’m sure they’d feel pretty strongly about a woman in that situation. And for everyone who believes a child in the womb is a person with a right to life, I hardly think it’s some minor matter that he favored letting women legally kill all those innocent people.

Seems you guys for some reason aren’t following the above and/or your helplessly biased or unwilling to be honest here due to either support for Perry or preference for the direction to which he flipped.

As for me, again, I have no problem or reluctance to giving credit to candidates I dislike or criticizing candidates I like, nor do I have any problem or reluctance to acknowledging good arguments against a policy I favor or pointing out flaws in arguments supporting policies I favor. I hold myself to a high standard of objectivity, single (not double) standards, openness, and good faith. I realize many/most on political blogs behave in the opposite way to all of the above, always in spin mode for their candidates and policy preferences as if they are some sort of unpaid spokesperson. But I hold myself to a higher standard. Apparently you guys don’t see that, and I ever so humbly suggest that you may be projecting.

What a shock that you’re a Perry supporter, given your obvious lack of objectivity on this matter.

I already addressed that point re: calling it a “flip”. I’ll paste my point here since you’re having trouble with all this stuff:

If you’re whole point is that it doesn’t amount to a “flip” — that “flip” is too strong a word — because it wasn’t a flip on abortion overall (as with Romney) — well, it was a shift from one side of an important policy question to the opposite side. I call that a flip. That policy question is: If a woman is pregnant as the result of rape or incest, should she have the legal option of killing the embryo/fetus? For years his answer was “Yes”. Yesterday he flipped that to “No.” If you guys think that the matter of whether or not it should be legal for someone in that situation to deliberately kill an embryo or fetus — an “unborn child” with an equal right to life in the view of many — is some small detail, not worthy of the word “flip” because it’s just some minor matter of “clarification”, I beg to differ. Whatever position one has on that matter, I hardly think it’s so minor as to be almost an afterthought, just a minor detail that one has ironed out. If one thinks a woman should have that option, I’m sure they’d feel pretty strongly about a woman in that situation. And for everyone who believes a child in the womb is a person with a right to life, I hardly think it’s some minor matter that he favored letting women legally kill all those innocent people.

As for the weak/lazy thinking, I’m explained it many times already. No sense pasting something you must have seen multiple times already but won’t consider with any objectivity or common sense.