Raven Patrick McPike: "I also like how you cherry pick and ignore all other cases." Wow, you're impatient! It takes me time to read each link and type a reply. I get through one-and-a-half replies (the second is two posts long), and immediately you're accusing me of "ignoring" the remainder. You chose your sequence of examples. I've looked at the top two of them so far, found them misleading. I have a real life, you know. I've delayed leaving (despite my wife's urging) to even type this reply. I'll be back.
Raven [cont] How can adding people to the insurance pool both *decrease* and *increase* the average premium? Take a pool of ten people, only half of them originally insured. The percentage of premium they originally paid -- 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100. Say that doubling the pool of insured ***reduces the premium size by 25%.*** The percentage of that original price they'll all now pay -- 75, 75, 75, 75, 75, 75, 75, 75, 75, 75. This increases what the previously uninsured pay, even though it decreases the actual premium. The net increase or decrease in what each person pays -- +75, +75, +75, +75, +75, -25, -25, -25, -25, -25. Average: +25. The average each person pays is 25% *higher*. 25% decrease and increase, simultaneously.
Raven Patrick McPike: "Obama’s falsely claimed that insurance premiums ‘will go down’ meanwhile 'the CBO makes clear that average premiums would be 27 to 30 percent higher' http://wapo.st/UkWix2 " Glenn Kessler admits the WH report cited CBO figures that "individuals purchasing coverage on the exchanges would see premium savings of 14 to 20 percent when compared to the purchase of the same policy without the law." Kessler's last rebuttal quote is an economist: "What we know is that for individuals the majority in most states (Wisconsin is the only exception I know of so far) will see premiums fall after tax-credits. For small firms it is less clear.” So how is that an increase? Well, for one, those who had NO insurance will now pay premiums…
Raven Patrick McPike: "Obama falsely claims Paul Ryan blocked farm bill: http://exm.nr/UkVF6I " Dishonest fact-check: the article admits the House was "unable to pass a massive, five-year farm bill" but then points to a *different*, much smaller, "short-term ... package of loans and grants for livestock producers and a limited number of farmers," as somehow falsifying blockage of the larger (blocked) bill. The Senate had no patience with such a limited stopgap, "faulting House Republican leaders for failing to consider the broader legislation in time." Clearly they did not consider the two bills equivalent. So this was not a falsehood on *Obama's* part. It was a deceptive defense of Paul Ryan's action. And this was your *top* example?
Raven Patrick McPike: I note that you have been posting links to the Washington Post fact-checker, Glenn Kessler. Please be aware that Kessler's factual accuracy has been challenged on several occasions. Conservative columnist and blogger Andrew Sullivan has devoted a number of entries to correcting Kessler. Kessler has not responded by printing corrections in his own column. But the presence of fact-checkers criticizing Obama does settle one issue: John Ashman is mistaken to claim fact-checkers never call Obama out on anything, due to their bias. So thank you for clearing up that misconception.
Raven Patrick McPike: "You response was evasive." I stated a measure of (dis-)honesty, in re misleading one's audience by false implication. I made no exceptions. At that point, you need not ask "Does this apply to Person A? To Person B? To Person C?" I made no exceptions. This means that no person was excepted from the general statement. No exceptions for persons A, B, or C. No exceptions for persons X, Y, or Z. Nor for anyone between. If you find this response "evasive", I must severely doubt your reading comprehension. This is not stating that persons A, B, C, X, Y, or Z actually have committed said offense. It is stating that they are held to the same standard. "So you acknowledge that Person A has lied?" is an unwarranted inference.
Raven John Ashman: "I took it to mean mean another year from Obama's Presidency." So Ryan *isn't* blaming Obama for the ~96% closure (the GM SVU section), but *only* for the remaining ~4% that stayed open just long enough to finish an Isuzu contract? And that GM had already made "a done deal" to close when finished? Why then did Ryan specify, after quoting Obama's speech: "That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year." -- as though the year dated from the speech? If he meant a year after *some other time*, why not say so? Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and died the same day. * ___________ * ... as John Adams, 50 years later. (But that part we won't mention aloud.)
Raven John Ashman: "I took it to mean mean another year from Obama's Presidency." Interesting, then, that you didn't mention this two days up-thread, when Patrick specified: "What he said was that the plant 'closed within a year' of Obama's campaign speech in Feb 2008." The discussion has gone on using that measure, and until this you never hinted you disagreed with it. And other "private reservations" your readers should know about?
Raven Jeanne, my stepson David is an Army (reservist) medic who's served twice in Iraq; I'm just happy he's not one of the wounded or dead, whether shown or not. *Had* he been, my outrage would be at those who *caused* the harm, not those who *object* to the human cost of a war based on lies. What do you mean by "out of context"? These are examples of that human cost -- a clear context, and examples clearly relevant to that context. Should photos of (say) the Kent State bodies, e.g. Mary Ann Vecchio kneeling over the body of Jeffrey Miller, never be used without newly given permission from families or survivors? Of the Kennedy assassination? Of the WTC on 9/11? It's not possible to "talk over" anyone here. Only to talk back. Is that forbidden?
Raven Patrick McPike: "This *really* isn't the article to be picking spat in." Take that up with people who make personal attacks on other PolicyMic writers. My post above is in reply to a specific comment (not the article), as indicated by the starting quote. And it makes no personal remarks toward anyone; it describes an historical event, with supporting citation. As to other posts of yours, doubtless I will get to them as time permits. I was offline for some hours earlier, and now I need to sleep.
Raven Jeanne Vickery: "Liar Johnson said no more war and gave four more years of body bags. // Liar Nixon brought the troops home." During the Johnson Administration, unelected candidate Nixon promised South Vietnam's leadership he'd give them better peace terms than LBJ if they'd boycott the Paris Peace Conference, shooting down LBJ's attempt to end the war. They complied. Roughly half the names on the Wall date from *after* Nixon took an office he won by prolonging the Vietnam War. Any resemblance to the 1980 "October Surprise", where the Reagan campaign promised arms to Iran if they'd keep the US Embassy hostages longer rather than return them to President Carter, is pretty blatant. http://hnn.us/articles/60446.html
Raven Patrick McPike: "... just because the supremes say that something is okay doesn't mean that they are right." As has been observed by many -- including Al Gore when SCOTUS ruled against him in Bush v. Gore -- "The Supreme Court is not final because it's always right. It's always right because it's final." The law is what they say it is. That's the reason for the "Supreme" in their name. Isn't that perfect? If you think not, then your complaint is with the Constitution. Amend it to say otherwise. After that, who *will* be the final arbiter of constitutionality? Congress? The president? You?
Raven Patrick McPike: "SCOTUS has the ability to say 'this is not constitutional'. They do not have the authority to say 'we shall call an unconstitutional mandate a tax so as to make it constitutional.'" Since they didn't say that, your remark (whether true or false) is irrelevant to the situation. The "mandate" says you can either buy insurance *or* be taxed for not doing so. SCOTUS said Congress's "Commerce Power" doesn't cover making such a law -- but its "Taxing Power" does. So the law *is* constitutional. If you think the Taxing Power doesn't cover creating a tax, I invite you to argue that point before SCOTUS. Personally, *I* think their ruling in Bush v. Gore was wrong (ignored precedent, violated their own principles), but hey....
Raven John Ashman: "It lasted about 4 more months which perfectly fits Ryan's speech." Four more months after Obama's Feb 2008 speech would be about June 2008, still under Bush. Or do you mean "four more months plus a year" (June 2009), in other words "sixteen months"? But Ryan claimed: "Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year." Sixteen months, a year plus four months, is more than a year. So Ryan lied about *that*. Unless he just meant the 96% closure in December 2008, *under George W. Bush*. Which is it, John? Be consistent. Don't switch back and forth.
Raven John Ashman: "Nice diversion." What diversion? You said: "The government practically bought GM, and still didnt' reopen that plant." But the government doesn't make GM's plant opening-or-closing decisions. Do you *want* it to? If not, then what's your complaint about? That it didn't do what it had no authority to do anyway?
Raven John Ashman: "The fact remains. Ryan didn't like,...." What he did or didn't *like* isn't the issue. His (unprovable by non-telepaths) likes and dislikes matter only to him. So which is it? The plant *didn't* last another year (as Ryan claimed), or it *did* last more than a year?
Raven John Ashman: "IOW, Obama went there to show the difference between Republican and Democrat. // Republican = closing plants // Democrat = open, working plants." And that plant-closing decision was made (and 96% carried out) during a Republican administration. While GM and Ford got saved during the subsequent Democratic administration. So Obama's proved that particular point. "The government practically bought GM, and still didnt' reopen that plant." "Practically". But the government (and Obama specifically) *doesn't run GM*, doesn't make those decisions. Do you *want* it to? But gee, wouldn't that be Socialism?
Raven John Ashman: "Did he 'promise'? No. But he certainly created the hope. 'Hey, I'm going to be there for you, we can do this' kind of thing. Rah, rah. It was as close to a promise as you can get. Vote for me, we can keep this thing going." Which certainly meant *once he became President* and his policies could be enacted -- not while his predecessor was still in office and Obama had no power or authority to do anything. As the GM spokesperson said, by the time Obama took office, the plant closing was "a done deal".
Raven John Ashman: "Ummm, well, because Obama made a point of going there in order to get people behind him, that he was going to take a new approach on the economy and with government's benevolent help, factories like this could 'stay open for 100 years'." And once he became President, Obama *gave* that help to "factories like this" -- saving GM and Ford. But GM had closed most of the Janesville plant, and decided to keep the Isuzu line open only long enough to complete an order, before Obama took office, during Bush's term. So Obama's new approach had nothing to do with the closing, nor could it have changed anything. A President's powers don't include rewinding time to undo past events.
Raven And was Ryan even referring to the Isuzu line closing at all? No, not according to the timespan he specified: "Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year." *Within a year* of Obama's Feb 2008 speech covers the GM SVU line closing in Dec 2008. It doesn't cover the Isuzu line closing in June 2009. In fact, counting Isuzu would make a lie of "that plant didn’t last another year." So pointing to the Isuzu contract (as making Ryan's statement true) is, and always has been, a red herring. And fact-checkers like PolitiFact got it right: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/aug/29/paul-ryan/did-barack-obama-break-promise-keep-gm-plant-open/
Raven John Ashman: "Ryan, he's pointing out how Obama's speeches and pretty illusions don't match reality. [...] He said that Obama's speeches don't match his accomplishments." So how does a plant closing that was "a done deal" during the *Bush* Administration make that point? Rather obviously Obama's "accomplishments" or lack of same can't apply to his *predecessor's* term. But Ryan carefully avoided mentioning in whose term the closing was decided, and about 96% completed. (1,200 let go in December 2008; "a few dozen" -- some say "50" -- later when the Isuzu order was filled.)
Raven Patrick McPike: "I said what I meant to say." Including "... he therefore must think that we can actually follow that constitution." ? Well, then indeed you have no basis to conclude "Darwin position is therefore the our Gov. can never follow the constitution." You contradict yourself.
Raven Patrick McPike: "You changing the topic is not an argument." You requested dialog. This is one, on the topic you present, "us obeying the rule of law and following the constitution." The amendment process takes time. The *original* First Amendment (proposed) still isn't ratified, and the *original* Second Amendment (proposed) finally became the 27th Amendment (ratified) in 1992, 204 years after the other 10 Amendments. If Bush couldn't wait to let Congress *read* the Patriot Act because of emergency, clearly an amendment would have been even less timely. "...the supreme court has overturned itself over 200 times...." But not on "the Constitution is not a suicide pact." Do you think they *should*? *Is* the Constitution a suicide pact?
Raven Patrick McPike: "Since claims that we cannot have what I see as the perfect form of Gov, he therefore must think that we can actually follow that constitution." I don't think what you're saying is necessarily what you intended to say. At least two words seem to be missing. You assert that Darwin and I made bad assumptions. Is it possible *you're* making one, about his beliefs?