• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House GOP No. 2: Someone shot at my office

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.
 
Wait a sec ... I thought liberals hated guns ... :shrug:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.

I think you've said all you need to say. Me too.

Maybe someone else will rise to the challenge.
 
Alright, found the link and the forum post.

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.

You could interpret it that way but you'd be wrong. Unless we're changing the definition of that "death panel" to suit conservative partisan needs.

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.

The end of life consultation was never mandatory and the committee would never have authority to deny treatment or coverage.
 
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.

First of all, Jallman is claiming that he DID post the text. (He did not - he posted a small part of the text he said was before the text in question).

Second, all government publications, including bills and laws, are public domain. There is no fair use violation by posting them.

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.

And I looked, every time. IT WASN'T THERE.

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.

Please tell me where YOU saw it. Either give me a link, or a SECTION number (which is part of the text, and independent of page numbers, which can change) in the FINAL enacted bill.

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.

It was the latter, and it was not "mandatory" - it simply specified that anyone who wants to talk to their doctor about end of life care ( a good idea for everyone) can get their doctor paid to do it. That's it.

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".

So if someone said they think all health is free now, would you think that's okay too? I would oppose that too.

What's wrong with insisting on literal accuracy about something that's had so many lies and inaccuracies told about it for so long? Especially when so many people are so confused, and really do believe there are literally panels of doom that will kill you?

It's not a "death panel." Don't call it one.
 
You could interpret it that way but you'd be wrong. Unless we're changing the definition of that "death panel" to suit conservative partisan needs.

Perhaps you'd like to...I dunno...demonstrate how he's wrong?
 
Second, all government publications, including bills and laws, are public domain. There is no fair use violation by posting them.

I'm not telling you as a lawyer, I'm telling you as a guy that's a mod on this board. Debate Politics Fair Use Rule (its found in the Rules thread) is that any outside source that you're posting should be about two or three paragraphs in length at most and then provide a link rather than posting entire articles or bills or other things. This is so threads aren't taken up with gigantic walls of quoted text beyond simply the legal ramifications of fair use.

As to whether it'd be right if people thought they got free insurance now? No. Its not right people think there are LITERAL death panels in here. I'm saying trying to descredit the entire movement that dislikes this bill by pointing out that some believe something stupid is ridiculous because the same can be said for the other side.
 
I'm not telling you as a lawyer, I'm telling you as a guy that's a mod on this board. Debate Politics Fair Use Rule (its found in the Rules thread) is that any outside source that you're posting should be about two or three paragraphs in length at most and then provide a link rather than posting entire articles or bills or other things. This is so threads aren't taken up with gigantic walls of quoted text beyond simply the legal ramifications of fair use.

Ah, I get it now.

That's fine. I don't need the whole text. I asked him for the first few sentences so I could find it myself in the bill. He finally gave me the first few sentences preceding it - but what came after had nothing to do with "death panels" or anything that has been discussed as looking like one.

As to whether it'd be right if people thought they got free insurance now? No. Its not right people think there are LITERAL death panels in here. I'm saying trying to descredit the entire movement that dislikes this bill by pointing out that some believe something stupid is ridiculous because the same can be said for the other side.

Sure the same could be said about the other side. You want to exclude those people too? Fine.

I believe people should just say what's actually in the bill. No exaggeration, no ridiculous scare tactics. What's wrong with that?
 
No. Because I'm right in my assessment. And you've yet to prove otherwise.

Look, you can EASILY prove me wrong. Just post where you provided the text. Or post a link to it.

I have done everything I can to try to find this language you say is there. I looked it up every time you directed me to it. It just isn't there.

You seem to think you were sending me to it, but you started out by giving me the wrong bill number, and then flung your usual string of insults. Then you realized your mistake. Well, you're still making mistakes, and instead of simply taking care of them, you're flinging more insults.

You've already spent more time excusing and calling me a liar. Why not just link to where you already provided me with this alleged text? Humiliate me in public.
 
Done and done.

Uh, where's the link? Post it HERE. You can post it to the original message. Maybe I missed it.

Seriously, dude, I really do want to see this language. If you would control your anger maybe you'd be able to find it and show me. I think it's probably there, and you're just completely wrong about it.
 
Uh, where's the link? Post it HERE. You can post it to the original message. Maybe I missed it.

Seriously, dude, I really do want to see this language. If you would control your anger maybe you'd be able to find it and show me. I think it's probably there, and you're just completely wrong about it.

No. It has been posted to you multiple times before. I am not playing this game with you.
 
No. It has been posted to you multiple times before. I am not playing this game with you.

No, it was not, and you know it. I explained in detail why none of your citations worked.

I am always ready to see the language from you or anyone else. Anyone else?
 
Back
Top Bottom