• 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

Expecting logical consistency from Sarah Palin is like expecting George Bush to be articulate.
 
apdst said:
Regardless of the high regard in which you hold yourself, just you saying I'm wrong doesn't mean that I'm actually wrong. Now, if you can use the the bill to prove me wrong, then that's different. Can you?
Click to expand...

I did not claim to have done this myself. Further, that is exactly what you have done, just saying "you are wrong, I win", and doing nothing beyond pointing to the word "secretary" and expecting us to see the plot.



It doesn't matter how many different ways you say it, you're still wrong.
Click to expand...

Prove it, with actual language from the bill.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Well that was dumb. Come on, you usually can bring it a little... this one failed to deliver. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Sometimes honesty is just not funny. Sorry.

Besides, I am way low on caffeine at the moment. Rationing coffee sucks!
 
Redress said:
Prove it, with actual language from the bill.
Click to expand...


I've already pointed to section, paragraph, line and page. Feel free to scroll back and read my posts.
 
apdst said:
I've already pointed to section, paragraph, line and page. Feel free to scroll back and read my posts.
Click to expand...

No, actually you have not. You have twisted meanings a couple times, then when corrected, said "you are wrong, I win". You have yet that I have seen posted an actual quote from the bill.
 
Redress said:
No, actually you have not. You have twisted meanings a couple times, then when corrected, said "you are wrong, I win". You have yet that I have seen posted an actual quote from the bill.
Click to expand...

Again, just you saying so doesn't make it true. Sorry if that comes as a shock to your ego. Now, if you wish to post info from the bill and tell me where I'm going wrong, you're more than welcome. You're one of the ones that incessently harps on people to prove their comments. It's time to practice what you preach. Thank you.
 
where does obama say he wants to do that? thx.
 
apdst said:
Again, just you saying so doesn't make it true. Sorry if that comes as a shock to your ego. Now, if you wish to post info from the bill and tell me where I'm going wrong, you're more than welcome. You're one of the ones that incessently harps on people to prove their comments. It's time to practice what you preach. Thank you.
Click to expand...

It has been done, and done again, and you just ignore it and argue about the word "secretary". Sometimes it is important to recognize when something is futile. You live in a dream word where you are right, and liberals want to kill old people. You enjoy that dream world, so trying to bring you to reality is a failed endeavor. The point has been made for any who are open to actual discussion, which you are not. I would point that almost all but the hyperpartisan right and the ignorant agree that this section of the bill was benign at worse.
 
Redress said:
It has been done, and done again, and you just ignore it and argue about the word "secretary". Sometimes it is important to recognize when something is futile. You live in a dream word where you are right, and liberals want to kill old people. You enjoy that dream world, so trying to bring you to reality is a failed endeavor. The point has been made for any who are open to actual discussion, which you are not. I would point that almost all but the hyperpartisan right and the ignorant agree that this section of the bill was benign at worse.
Click to expand...

Still nothing to support what you're saying, other than your own comments?
 
apdst said:
Still nothing to support what you're saying, other than your own comments?
Click to expand...

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.
 
The bill is frankly making me remember the arguments over the Patriot Act (granted, afteri t was already passed) from some years ago; back when grannies book club habits were going to be spied on by the big mean Big Brother government because she got them at the library.

Few people actually knowing what's really IN the bill.

Few people actually knowing what's in the bill actually means.

One side making exaggerated claims of what its going to do/will cause.

The more reasonable, but still fear mongering, ones on that side claiming that what it could LEAD too ist he problem.

And the other side defending it as necessary and those that don't want it want to do nothing.

Its just that the sides are flipped on this one but the script is pretty much the same.
 
Well my question is this; if the evil Obama Socialists put this in...to kill our grandma, why did all the (R) vote for this? Why was this put in by an (R)?

Oh, Those Death Panels
You would think that if Republicans wanted to totally mischaracterize a health care provision and demagogue it like nobody's business, they would at least pick something that the vast majority of them hadn't already voted for just a few years earlier. Because that's not just shameless, it's stupid.

Yes, that's right. Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!

Let's go to the bill text, shall we? "The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning." The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.

So either Republicans were for death panels in 2003 before turning against them now--or they're lying about end-of-life counseling in order to frighten the bejeezus out of their fellow citizens and defeat health reform by any means necessary. Which is it, Mr. Grassley ("Yea," 2003)?
Click to expand...

So, I guess it is up for a few to explain..why are the (R) like Grassley trying to kill my dear grandmother? Seriously, how craven of dishonesty and hypocrisy must one be filled with to go around using as a scare tactic a feature in a bill they approved?

Never fear, Palin has declared victory for us all!
Sarah Palin Claims Victory On Death Panels: "Gratified"
Sarah Palin crowed Friday over news that the Senate Finance Committee will leave end-of-life care out of its health care legislation.

"I join millions of Americans in expressing appreciation for the Senate Finance Committee's decision to remove the provision in the pending health care bill that authorizes end-of-life consultations (Section 1233 of HR 3200)," she wrote on her Facebook page. "It's gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress."

But the former governor of Alaska isn't satisfied. "That provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones," she wrote. Palin went on to claim that health care reform will inevitably lead to single-payer, which will mean rationing. nationalized health care inevitably leads to rationing. There is simply no way to cover everyone and hold down the costs at the same time.

Of course, health care is already rationed. Even the head of Medicare under President Bush said: "Just because there isn't some government agency specifically telling you which treatments you can have based on cost-effectiveness, that doesn't mean you aren't getting some treatments."
Click to expand...

FYI: from 2003 until now, can the Republicans here please tell us all how many grannies they killed? Otherwise, don't they have some apologizing to do for such dishonesty?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
Again, just you saying so doesn't make it true. Sorry if that comes as a shock to your ego. Now, if you wish to post info from the bill and tell me where I'm going wrong, you're more than welcome. You're one of the ones that incessently harps on people to prove their comments. It's time to practice what you preach. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Someone already tried that and you said "No, you're wrong." How about you elaborate a bit and enlighten us all.
 
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...

Multiple people actually.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Or Obama to be honest.
Click to expand...

The reason Obama is dangerous is because he IS articulate. He could sell ice to Eskimos. I would rather have a dumbass in the White House right now. Damn, where is George Bush when we finally need him? LOL. :mrgreen:
 
apdst said:
Did Palin propose that elderly Americans be denied medical care, because they weren't worth the investment, like PBO wants to do? Show me where she did that and I'll agree with you.
Click to expand...

We don't know if The Palin proposed that elderly Americans be denied medical care, because they weren't worth the investment since we don't have all of the deatils of her mind but PBO and the Cogress absolutely does NOT propose that elderly Americans be denied medical care, because they weren't worth the investment.

So why are making such a rediculous accusation ? Man that is as outlandish as the guy who claimed that PALIN had sex with a moose. Come on now that guy is way off base about PALIN having sex with an old moose. Yet come to think of so are you accusing PBO of wanting to euthanize old people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom