it's not a "verbal game" to try to stick to the argument at hand. your feelings on the specifics of the bill are well-known, and are all you ever "add to the convo" whether they're relevant to the diary in which the "convo" is taking place or not. this is one example, because this diary is not really about the specifics of the bill, but rather about whether the WH's recent actions vis a vis lieberman caused a rise in Obama's poll numbers. i said it was unlikely, and you responded to tell everyone once again that the specifics of the bill are bad and are due to weak leadership and will hurt democrats specifically, which is probably true but has nothing to do with my comment.
"the white house floated a trial balloon that they would work with Joe Lieberman on the possibility of dropping single payer or public option elements - the feedback was swift and furious against the president. The white house immediately tied the statement to Rahm Emmanuel, and not the president - and then stated verbally and clearly that they had not equivocated their position"
contributed to a rise in the poll numbers. These particular tactics, not your well-worn talking points about polling on general features of the bill, are what is under discussion.
You would do well to actually read and consider the specific issues under discussion before going off on one of your tangential rants.
when you say "regulation" are you talking specifically about agency-issued regulations, such as appear in the Federal Register, go through the APA rule-making process, etc., and when approved are encoded in the CFR? Or are you talking about "regulation" in the broad sense to include any law that applies to a particular industry?