DF's First Law of Causation:

(1) Something bad happens;
(2) The bad event can be connected to something Obama did, no matter how remote, attenuated or questionable the causal link between the two events;
(3) Obama responsible

freeman3 wrote:DF's First Law of Causation:

(1) Something bad happens;
(2) The bad event can be connected to something Obama did, no matter how remote, attenuated or questionable the causal link between the two events;
(3) Obama responsible

Obama's Law of Causation:

1. Something bad happens.
2. The bad event can be connected to something Bush did, no matter how remote, attenuated or questionable the causal link between the two events OR it seems like something the Republicans might have said at some point;
3. Republicans or Bush are responsible.

So does this excuse your ODS?

danivon wrote:So does this excuse your ODS?

"Syndrome" denotes irrationality. Yet, what I have said about Obama has the glorious advantage of being true. For example, today he said, "That's the good thing as a President, I can do whatever I want."

Clearly, that is what he believes. He just delayed the employer mandate again. Why? Because it's politically expedient. He thinks he's running a banana republic and acting appropriately.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So does this excuse your ODS?

"Syndrome" denotes irrationality.

No, it does not, it just means a recognisable set of signs, symptoms, or behaviours.

"Derangement" does, however, denote irrationality.

Yet, what I have said about Obama has the glorious advantage of being true. For example, today he said, "That's the good thing as a President, I can do whatever I want."

Yes. because he was touring Monticello and broke protocol by going outside to look at the view. So he told a little joke. And humourless conservatives looking to pick at any hole are taking it literally. I bet you did the same when Reagan joked about bombing Russia, right?

Clearly, that is what he believes. He just delayed the employer mandate again. Why? Because it's politically expedient. He thinks he's running a banana republic and acting appropriately.

I still haven't seen where you explain that he legally can't do that. All you've shown so far is that a case was raised (and so far lost) on the individual mandate.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:So does this excuse your ODS?

"Syndrome" denotes irrationality.

No, it does not, it just means a recognisable set of signs, symptoms, or behaviours.

"Derangement" does, however, denote irrationality.

Major win for you. After all, it's the totality of it that denotes derangement.

And yet, my defense remains: it's not deranged if it's true. My complaints are. See the other forum.

Doctor Fate wrote:And yet, my defense remains: it's not deranged if it's true. My complaints are. See the other forum.

So far, I still have yet to see you back up your claim on this thread that delaying the corporate mandate is a breach of the President's role. Or on the other thread that it is 'illegal'.

To demonstrate someone has broken the law, it's usually a good idea to cite the law concerned, and show how it has been breached. So far, all I get from you is links/quotes from op-eds and talking heads, and blather about how it's too long for you to read.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:And yet, my defense remains: it's not deranged if it's true. My complaints are. See the other forum.

So far, I still have yet to see you back up your claim on this thread that delaying the corporate mandate is a breach of the President's role. Or on the other thread that it is 'illegal'.

To demonstrate someone has broken the law, it's usually a good idea to cite the law concerned, and show how it has been breached. So far, all I get from you is links/quotes from op-eds and talking heads, and blather about how it's too long for you to read.

Dude, I've cited several expert opinions. I could cite dozens. Here's the hard truth: I'm not reading 2000+ pages and neither are you. You say I'm wrong and I say you are.

Doctor Fate wrote:Dude, I've cited several expert opinions. I could cite dozens.

And yet they are just opinions. I see none of them citing the actual law that has been breached. Telling me they are 'expert' opinions or that you can find more is juat employing two similar fallacies - Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Majority.

Doctor Fate wrote: Here's the hard truth: I'm not reading 2000+ pages and neither are you. You say I'm wrong and I say you are.

So how do you know you are right? Even withoit reading all 2000 pages, you have surely read enough opinion to see if any of it cites the actual text. I can't prove a negative without checking the full document, but you could back up your positive assertion with a small citation.

I do not say you are 'wrong' so much as that your case is unproven and your main evidence is just more aegument rather than fact. If after all this time no-one has done what was with.the individual mandate, perhaps the killer clause does not actually exist.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Dude, I've cited several expert opinions. I could cite dozens.

And yet they are just opinions. I see none of them citing the actual law that has been breached. Telling me they are 'expert' opinions or that you can find more is juat employing two similar fallacies - Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Majority.

Here's your fallacy: you think that me failing to sort through 2000+ pages proves me wrong. It does nothing of the sort.

Doctor Fate wrote: Here's the hard truth: I'm not reading 2000+ pages and neither are you. You say I'm wrong and I say you are.

So how do you know you are right? Even withoit reading all 2000 pages, you have surely read enough opinion to see if any of it cites the actual text. I can't prove a negative without checking the full document, but you could back up your positive assertion with a small citation.

I've cited a law professor. I could cite more law professors. Unless they say, "Provision X is being violated," you say it's a fallacy.

I do not say you are 'wrong' so much as that your case is unproven and your main evidence is just more aegument rather than fact. If after all this time no-one has done what was with.the individual mandate, perhaps the killer clause does not actually exist.

So, in your theory, they wrote all those pages to give the President a blank check to do whatever he wishes?

Well, here, this seems to meet your standard: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ter ... nguage-law

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Dude, I've cited several expert opinions. I could cite dozens.

And yet they are just opinions. I see none of them citing the actual law that has been breached. Telling me they are 'expert' opinions or that you can find more is juat employing two similar fallacies - Appeal to Authority and Appeal to Majority.

Here's your fallacy: you think that me failing to sort through 2000+ pages proves me wrong. It does nothing of the sort.

He said it does not prove you wrong, just unproven.

bbauska wrote:He said it does not prove you wrong, just unproven.

True.

Did you read the last link I posted? I think it puts his argument to rest.

fate

Did you read the last link I posted? I think it puts his argument to rest

Actually Heckler v Chaney is a ruling that does put it to rest....
And not the way you'd like.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... nt/277873/

rickyp wrote:fate

Did you read the last link I posted? I think it puts his argument to rest

Actually Heckler v Chaney is a ruling that does put it to rest....
And not the way you'd like.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... nt/277873/

That ruling doesn't exist. Unless it's "Lon Chaney."

Heckler v. Cheney doesn't give Obama the right to rewrite the law at his whim in perpetuity. There are some limits. If not, there is NOTHING that would prevent a future GOP President from just striking the whole law.

At this point, you, being the barrister you are, will say, "But, the popularity of the law will force a future Republican President to keep it."

Yeah. Sure. We keep waiting for the overwhelming support. It's not going to happen. That's why he keeps delaying parts of it.

And, I do apologize to you, rickyp: I should have quoted the parts of the article that actually show he is violating the ACA. I mean, hey, I can't expect you to actually read it. I mean . . . it's more than one full page!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_v._Chaney

H eckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), is a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. The case presented the question of the extent to which a decision of an administrative agency, here the Food and Drug Administration, to exercise its discretion not to undertake certain enforcement actions is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Court further supported its holding by pointing to three reasons why reviewing an agency's decision not to act is unsuitable to judicial review. First, agency decisions whether to initiate enforcement actions are usually based on a complicated balancing of multiple factors, such as efficient allocation of limited resources, likelihood of success, and the relationship of the potential action to the overall enforcement strategy of the agency. The courts are ill-suited to performing such an analysis. Secondly, the court noted when an agency chooses not to act, they are not exercising any coercive power over others that might be worthy of heightened judicial protection. Third, the Court found an agency’s discretion not to seek enforcement as being analogous to exercises of prosecutorial discretion that courts have traditionally been unwilling to review.