• 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!

Palin Endorsed End Of Life Counseling As Governor

sam_w said:
Sorry, fail. Your goddess is a moron, a liar, and a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

all of that is true but at least she did not have sex with that moose like that bad guy said !!
 
Last edited:
hazlnut said:
Tell you what...

You show us exactly where the health care bill wants to do this and you won't look so foolish clinging to a talking point that has been debunked numerous times.
Click to expand...

oh come on give apdst a break that language is in the bill, it is in the version of the bill that was given to the RNC by those little grey men with no ears and elliptical eyes. What are they called ? Oh aliens !!
 
EgoffTib said:
Someone already tried that and you said "No, you're wrong." How about you elaborate a bit and enlighten us all.
Click to expand...

All I've seen so far, are insults and smartass comments and a couple of drive bys from the likes of yourself. No one has yet taken the actual language from the bill and interpreted it. All we keep hearing is, "that's not what it means", without any follow-up explanation of what it does mean.
 
Redress said:
Shall we actually go back. This is from one thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/54187-specter-protests-not-representative-america-20.html#post1058190068, http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/54187-specter-protests-not-representative-america-21.html#post1058190132. I challenge you to find any example of you quoting language from the bill and showing explicitly what it means as I do in those posts to support your position. By the way, I can bring in a bunch more than just those.
Click to expand...

All you did was copy/paste part of the bill saying, "No, that's not what it means". Can you tell us what it does mean? Can you possibly explain why the bill specifically states that an order to sustain life must be issued?
 
apdst said:
All I've seen so far, are insults and smartass comments and a couple of drive bys from the likes of yourself. No one has yet taken the actual language from the bill and interpreted it. All we keep hearing is, "that's not what it means", without any follow-up explanation of what it does mean.
Click to expand...

If you have any evidence such as actually language that defines these death panels or the death panel process why don't you display it for us. If you cannot then it does not exist.
 
sam_w said:
For ‘Death Panels’ Before She Was Against Them? Palin Endorsed End Of Life Counseling As Governor



:rofl Crass shameless dishonest and deception. Any surprise with Caribou Barbie? To think there are some that still follow this loser.
Click to expand...

This is why I saw that loser, the Igloo Girl, for what she is right from the first day that John McCain introduced her. I know it is hard to believe but to me she just came across as a liar, a phoney, a shameless opportunist.
I was rigth then and more and more people are rigth now.
 
Last edited:
F107HyperSabr said:
If you have any evidence such as actually language that defines these death panels or the death panel process why don't you display it for us. If you cannot then it does not exist.
Click to expand...

Review my posts and you'll see where I've already done that.
 
apdst said:
All you did was copy/paste part of the bill saying, "No, that's not what it means". Can you tell us what it does mean? Can you possibly explain why the bill specifically states that an order to sustain life must be issued?
Click to expand...

Here is a neat idea, how about actually reading what is linked to you, you will make yourself look much less stupid doing that. Here is strait from one of the links I just provided you, my own words:

Redress said:
Ok got it.

(B) The level of treatment indicated under subparagraph (A)(ii) may range from an indication for full treatment to an indication to limit some or all or specified interventions. Such indicated levels of treatment may include indications respecting, among other items—

This means you can opt for full treatment, or less than full treatment in advance, in consultation with your doctor. You get to choose.

(i) the intensity of medical intervention if the patient is pulse less, apneic, or has serious cardiac or pulmonary problems;

This means you can give a DNR(DO Not Resuscitate) order or similar instruction.

It's a delineation of choices you can make in a "Living Will". It continues:

(ii) the individual’s desire regarding transfer to a hospital or remaining at the current care setting;

(iii) the use of antibiotics; and

(iv) the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration.

I don't see these questions you see in this area. Setting up a Living Will or Care plan is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Now, all I have seen from you so far is hysteria and complaints about things not actually in the bill. Can you actually do as I have done, and show language from the bill allowing for any of your claims, and explain how they work?

So far 3 people have taken language from the bill and analyed it for you, and you come back with "All I've seen so far, are insults and smartass comments and a couple of drive bys from the likes of yourself. No one has yet taken the actual language from the bill and interpreted it. All we keep hearing is, "that's not what it means", without any follow-up explanation of what it does mean. " Your statement is both inaccurate, and you have done even less than this.
 
Redress said:
Here is a neat idea, how about actually reading what is linked to you, you will make yourself look much less stupid doing that. Here is strait from one of the links I just provided you, my own words:



Now, all I have seen from you so far is hysteria and complaints about things not actually in the bill. Can you actually do as I have done, and show language from the bill allowing for any of your claims, and explain how they work?

So far 3 people have taken language from the bill and analyed it for you, and you come back with "All I've seen so far, are insults and smartass comments and a couple of drive bys from the likes of yourself. No one has yet taken the actual language from the bill and interpreted it. All we keep hearing is, "that's not what it means", without any follow-up explanation of what it does mean. " Your statement is both inaccurate, and you have done even less than this.
Click to expand...

What, no link? How do we know which of the one thousand pages that came from?

And, you're full of poo-poo when you say that three people have taken actual language from the bill to prove me wrong. Unless you have a link to prove that they prove me wrong, then, well, you're just wrong.
 
apdst said:
All you did was copy/paste part of the bill saying, "No, that's not what it means". Can you tell us what it does mean? Can you possibly explain why the bill specifically states that an order to sustain life must be issued?
Click to expand...

Ok, remember where I told you to read the links provided? There is a reason for that. If you had followed the first link I gave you, you would have answered the questions you just asked. Funny how something as simple as reading will keep you from making such a big fool of yourself.

This is how you argue: make claims, when some one argues you have no proof, you demand proof, then you deny that the person has proved anything, and keep it up till finally people walk away in disgust, and you think you have somehow won the argument.
 
F107HyperSabr said:
If you have any evidence such as actually language that defines these death panels or the death panel process why don't you display it for us. If you cannot then it does not exist.
Click to expand...

In fact, I do have actually language from the bill to prove my point.

Here it is:

‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--
‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).
Click to expand...

WHY would there be a need for an, "order regarding life sustaining treatment", if there wasn't an alternative to an, "order regarding life sustaining treatment"? The only other option to life sustaining treatment, is to let the mother****er die. Hello!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom