But that's okay because I'm only interested in motivating partisans and winning debate points.

UPDATE:  Nate Silver says that I'm wrong because The stock market's reaction to the declining prospects for the public option, however, should not be conflated with its reaction to the anticipated passage of the the public option-less reform proposal currently before the Senate. shut up that's why.

via D.A.

It really is fortunate that he's always on the side of angels because even Nate Silver can be a stupid fucking moron

For example Mr. 538 - remember Question 3 of 20?

3. Where is the evidence that the plan, as constructed, would substantially increase insurance industry profit margins, particularly when it is funded in part via a tax on insurers?

I checked in with a source that is really very good at reading the tea leaves.

As of 11 AM Eastern time, stocks for the six largest publicly-traded health insurance companies have risen by an average 4.49 percent, as weighted by their market capitalization.

Stock prices? What's that got to do with a Senate bill designed to optimized Health Insurance gouging?

Favorable developments for health care reform have been met with decreases in the prices of these stocks, and unfavorable developments with improved valuations.

Normally at this point I'd go into your rationalizations as to why this doesn't mean the Senate bill shouldn't have two or three shit sandwiches added to its score but I wouldn't want to accuse you of picking and choosing evidence and spinning it to support your arguments. After all when you make mistakes, "they're honest ones" and it's just anybody who disagrees with you that's being a dishonest hack.


No comments: