Congratulations, you've just identified the one portion of your post that contained a fact. Of course, since The Exception merely noted that most of your post was opinion, not fact, you didn't actually manage to contradict him. You also seem to be somewhat confused about what exactly the term "republic" means.
Well, slick, wrong on both counts. The word does fit precisely the point I made, if grammatically imprecise in my usage. And if it "epitomizes" my posting style, surely you can find an example or two from the past few years where I did it before? And I'm not talking about those times when you can't comprehend my writing style (which is likely over half the time, since I'm not writing for the likes of you - no offense), I mean where I misuse a word or malaprop. Boy, oh, boy, you're swell. When I grow down I wanna be just like you !
So you're saying your use of the word is precise and imprecise simultaneously. It's amazing you haven't managed to cancel yourself out.
That post is a good example: You're defending your word usage with ignorance about using words, and you're challenging me to prove something I didn't say, based on the conviction that your ignorance about what I did say doesn't keep you from challenging it. But it's a nice touch that you're asking me a direct question while at the same time emphasizing that your post isn't directed at me; that apparently tries to shove the same strategy of ignorance unto me, encouraging me to respond to something you think I don't understand. Sorry, it isn't working. "I don't expect the likes of you to understand the words I'm using" is arrogant and ultimately defensive bullshit, whether it comes from allegedly learned academics or -- well, you. We do understand the words you're abusing, and your abuse isn't hiding the fact that your content sucks.
Apparently not only are you unaware of the definition of facts, or republic, but most also seems to be a bit too much for your limited vocabulary. Perhaps we can continue this discussion with monosyllabic words and coloring books?
And he's using an example in which the direct will of the voting public, and their representative electoral college, was subverted by a different and unelected branch of government, to attack a case in which the elected representatives of the people made a decision he doesn't agree with.
If you don't like what you see then don't read it. I retired from a profession that demanded me to write well, basically I ate bread based on a solid ability to communicate with word, so I've no insecurities in that regard, but the reason I demean you publicly as I've told you probably around 5 or 6 times during the second half of my membership here is that you're a bore (using prettier words on occasion, but that's what it boils down to in a word). You've less regard for content or substance than those I would voluntarily choose to converse with (or with whom I would like to converse, for the boors).
Any chance of you taking your own advice someday? Only one? You poor thing! No wonder you're incapable of addressing the topic.
You are one to talk about being a bore, far too many of your posts in the past have been little more than appeal to authority logical fallacies.
One outcome of the healthcare reform part of the PPACA (aside from the reform of health insurance, which some WFers apparently still don't get) is that medical practitioners are finding more efficient ways to do things that not only provide better patient care, but that reduce costs. Again, posted in its entirety because that Evul Librul site Medscape requires membership access: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/837640?src=wnl_edit_tpal&uac=127342PX
From that Evul Librul source the American Journal of Preventive Medicine: Bottom line for the TLDR mob: Uninsured white people are less likely to seek preventive measures than other groups. Why does this sound so familiar?