Reply #59: No, it isn't. [View All]

[anigbrowl]

The reason I'm criticizing you this way is to point up the fact that you respond to every disagreement with ad-hominem attacks on those who disagree with you, asserting variously that I'm focussed on defensive battles, or rich and healthy and healthy enough not to care about health reform (even though you know nothing whatsoever about either my medical or financial life) and so on. When it was pointed out above that you were simply factually mistaken on the requirements to change the senate rules, you just responded by attacking that poster as well.

It would be a lot easier to take you seriously if you had bothered to do some basic research and present a strategy for healthcare reform that took account of the actual facts, but instead you have consistently opted for guilt-tripping anyone who dares to point out the flaw in your argument and dismissing counter-examples as unimportant. Most people would prefer to retain the legislative institutions we have which proceed by representation and negotiation rather than acclamation, notwithstanding their flaws.