Sorry. Your analogy misses the mark again. When you say Citizens United is presently law and Obama and I continue to criticize it, that's fine. Every decision should be subject to thoughtful critique. But neither I or Obama did anything to subvert or prevent the application of the law. Respecting (though not agreeing with) the law, Obama proceeded with his campaign with the full effect of Citizens United, and handily won reelection.
No, your understanding of analogies misses the mark. I don't know how many times I need to restate the point, but they were provided as examples of bad legal decisions. I said that and made it clear, yet you continuously twist the statement into something it's not. And I never wrote that Obama didn't subvert the law. There is evidence that he and his administration did, but that's another can of worms that brings us far off-topic.
And by the way the whining about bulldozing the legislation and ignoring precedent and procedure is baseless and insipid. Even Boehner doesn't resort to that level of ridiculousness.
It's called a statement of fact. The historical record of how the ACA was passed is out there for everyone to see, along with Nancy Pelosi's statement of how we'll have to pass it "to see what's in it." The way the ACA was passed was insipid, dirty, underhanded and corrupt. If calling out corruption is baseless and insipid, that says more about you than anything else. The law itself is a bad, horrible law that is causing more harm than good. What is ridiculous is how for the law's defenders will engage in a such a massive level of denial it is almost psychotic. I'd retort that even Reid and Pelosi don't engage in that level of ridiculousness and stupidity, but they do on a daily basis.
