Page 36 of 39 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 383

Thread: House GOP No. 2: Someone shot at my office

  1. #351
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: House GOP No. 2: Someone shot at my office

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    No, it's not. Please quote the language or give me a citation.

    I asked this from a previous poster recently and he never could do it. He kept throwing page numbers and stuff at me, and it just wasn't there. If you have a section number, provide it. I'll explain what the language actually means.
    It was provided to you with a direct quote lifted out of the text. Once again, you lie and claim it wasn't. No one is going to keep jumping through the same hoop for you over and over again simply because you refuse to acknowledge what has been shoved in your face repeatedly.

  2. #352
    Guru
    deltabtry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    MA.
    Last Seen
    11-26-16 @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    4,021

    Re: House GOP No. 2: Someone shot at my office

    Quote Originally Posted by Coronado View Post
    Wait a sec ... I thought liberals hated guns ...
    I knew this was going to happen, one side playing the other. Common criminals and little to most know(apperently) the the constitution gives the people the power to remove any elected official without violence.

  3. #353
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: House GOP No. 2: Someone shot at my office

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    It was provided to you with a direct quote lifted out of the text. .
    No it wasn't.

    Post it again or direct me to it please.

    I have seen a few quoted texts, and they said nothing of the sort. Not even close. This has been explained repeatedly. There is a process for deciding what MINIMUM coverage an insurer may put in its policy to sell it on the exchange. No maximums. No control of healthcare decisions by the government - it's still a private decision between doctor and patient, with only a private insurer to interfere, like now. There is no loss of choice of doctor either.

    It's just not there.

  4. #354
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: House GOP No. 2: Someone shot at my office

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    No it wasn't.

    Post it again or direct me to it please.
    No. I am done jumping through your hoops only to have you claim total ignorance of the fact that it was shown to you on a number of occasions.

    You are obtuse and dishonest. I am not playing your game any longer. Argue the points made or just shove off. I don't care which but I am not backtracking the conversation every page just because you cannot or will not keep up.

  5. #355
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: House GOP No. 2: Someone shot at my office

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    No. I am done jumping through your hoops only to have you claim total ignorance of the fact that it was shown to you on a number of occasions.

    You are obtuse and dishonest. I am not playing your game any longer. Argue the points made or just shove off. I don't care which but I am not backtracking the conversation every page just because you cannot or will not keep up.
    It was NEVER shown to me. Don't call me a liar. You're the liar. Prove me wrong by simply directing me to the actual text, or back off. It's that simple.

  6. #356
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: House GOP No. 2: Someone shot at my office

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    It was NEVER shown to me. Don't call me a liar. You're the liar. Prove me wrong by simply directing me to the actual text, or back off. It's that simple.
    IT was shown to you directly already. You are simply lying. Period.

  7. #357
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: House GOP No. 2: Someone shot at my office

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    IT was shown to you directly already. You are simply lying. Period.
    Wrong.

    I can't prove a negative. You can easily prove a positive. Simply show me where it was quoted directly. Link to the message. Very easy. Maybe I simply missed it. If so, I'll apologize and respond to it, as I'm eager to.

    You called me a liar. I take that seriously. I say YOU are the liar. If not, simply show me the message and I'll apologize.

  8. #358
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: House GOP No. 2: Someone shot at my office

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    Wrong.

    I can't prove a negative. You can easily prove a positive. Simply show me where it was quoted directly. Link to the message. Very easy. Maybe I simply missed it. If so, I'll apologize and respond to it, as I'm eager to.

    You called me a liar. I take that seriously. I say YOU are the liar. If not, simply show me the message and I'll apologize.
    This has been done. You have been shown and you simply lie when you say you haven't. I don't care what you call me because I am fully aware of your propensity for being dishonest. It means nothing to me when a liar calls me a liar.

    I don't want your apology. The apology of a liar is probably disingenuous anyway. It means even less than your word to me now.

  9. #359
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,997

    Re: House GOP No. 2: Someone shot at my office

    Alright, found the link and the forum post.

    First, Mister, you gotta understand one thing. No one is going to let you bait them, intentionally or unintentionally, into a fair use violation. Posting page 25 through page 42 of the Bill that Jallman keeps talking about in MULTIPLE posts to you would be a Fair Use violation. Jallman followed the rules, posted the beginning paragraph of the portion he was talking about, gave you specific pages, and told you to read the rest yourself. Continuing to ask to "paste the exact words" is useless. Jallman's taken ever effort, in numerous threads, to point you directly to where he's talking about while also remaining in the rules. Posting 20 pages of text from a bill is a Fair Use Violation and would get him points.

    Second, I've gone in and read the section and I can see how it can be interrpited either way. It does set up a review board that oversee's insurance issues, setting minimums, and making determinations on what kind of treatment should be available. I can easily see how someone can see this role expanding and being similar to rationing, which could be considered a "death panel" in one of the ways they were typically talked about. At the same time I can see the way someone could read it as simply applying to insurance companies.

    That said, the "Death Panel" thing generally came up between two different things. One was a committee overseeing health care choices and being able to deny treatment or deny coverage or deny the types of insurance that are available, the other was something to do with the mandatory end of life care that has since been removed to my understanding.

    Either way, yes the rhetoric is incredibly stupid to use. That said, I stand by my notion that someone could potentially answer yes to that kind of question on a poll under the belief that they're meaning "death panels" in spirit of what it was talking about rather than litterally "This bill creates something called a 'death panel' that decides if someone should or shouldn't die". Trying to trump up "how many people think there are death panels" in the bill is a useless argument, and frankly one that could be equally countered by "How many people think they will get free health coverage automatically now that the bills passed".

  10. #360
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: House GOP No. 2: Someone shot at my office

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Either way, yes the rhetoric is incredibly stupid to use. That said, I stand by my notion that someone could potentially answer yes to that kind of question
    That's been exactly what I have been saying all along. It's a rhetorical device rather than a literal label. It's a very heavy handed rhetorical device, but that's still all it is. But it is still accurate in spirit even if it isn't accurate in being literal.

Page 36 of 39 FirstFirst ... 263435363738 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •