I recently posted my response (http://goo.gl/GXXeQ) to Ronald Dworkins's NYRB essay regarding the challenge to the ACA (or "Obamacare"). How persuaded are you by Mr. Dworkins's arguments?It's a small sample, but still, I'm surprised that even after being shown how the argument is, in fact, specious, there are still people who think it isn't. If I hadn't voted in my own poll, the No votes would be in the lead.
I'm hoping that result is partially due to confusion caused by a sloppy typo on my part ... I accidentally deleted "lead" in "could [lead] to" so maybe folks are somehow misunderstanding what argument I'm referring to? Although, since it's specifically discussed in the article and is the only argument about broccoli that has been discussed on the national stage since Bush I famously proclaimed his distaste for the popular green vegetable, it's hard to imagine my error could cause any confusion there.
It is disgraceful that the "THE GOVERNMENT CAN FORCE YOU TO BUY BROCCOLI IF WE DON'T FIND THIS UNCONSTITUTIONAL" argument didn't result in every person who couldn't immediately spot its clear invalidity being thrown in a potato sack and dumped in the Potomac. That, even after its invalidity is spelled out, it still remains persuasive reinforces my belief that most (not all, but most) Republicans are simply too stupid to talk to. They just don't get it. The "limiting principle" that some were so concerned couldn't be determined is so fucking obvious that failure to perceive it tells me they suffer from some form of mental retardation.
Seriously, if you voted no on Question 3 of that survey, I don't even want to hear from you because I've had it. You are, literally, too stupid to talk to.