zlacker

> First, it ignores the outcomes of the actual policies as well as the framework of thinking that it supports. Someone who has a "different take" whose outcome changes whether I or my friends can afford health care or not is not an "equal but opposite" philosophy.

What opinions about health care policy are people allowed to have, in your view?

>>jquery+(OP)
Please reread the post, as it didn't mention that certain opinions are barred, merely that the opinions are not "equal but opposite".

>>TeaDru+l8
> the opinions are not "equal but opposite"

What does this even mean?

>>maland+pe
It means that this is not an equivalent, right-leaning opinion.

>>TeaDru+Ze
And who gets to judge that it isn't equivalent? Equivalency implies measurability and this seems like an immeasurable assertion based solely on personal opinion.

>>maland+mg
No one; I was under the impression that this was an opinion stated by the poster. The response just seemed to not understand what the poster was saying.

>>TeaDru+Bj
Oh, got it. You highlighted that part from the OP so I assumed that there was some shared understanding of objectivity here that wasn't apparent to me. If it is just the OP's opinion/perception of equivalency (or lack thereof) and nothing else then I guess there's nothing worth discussing here since the person the OP would be in dialogue with could disagree about the OP's judgement of equivalency and it's just two people agreeing to disagree and nothing more.