RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


SpinnerofTales -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/11/2009 2:20:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

In Wisconsin a 15 year old can drink in a bar, if his parents are with him. It is legal but is also up to the discretion of the bartender. In most cases they are served though.


I guess they figure "Hey...they're already in WIsconsin...what worse can happen to them"

Sorry....New York snobbery came through




tazzygirl -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/11/2009 6:57:19 PM)

Are you sure you didnt read anything in the actual bill referring too identification?




Arpig -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/11/2009 6:59:53 PM)

I didn't read it tazzy, but if somebody proposed an amendment to put such a provision in, it makes sense that it isn't in there.




Lucylastic -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/11/2009 7:09:43 PM)

I found this interesting
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1219-Joe-Wilson-Voted-to-Provide-Taxpayer-Money-for-Illegal-Immigrants-Healthcare




tazzygirl -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/11/2009 7:17:22 PM)

Arpig, so far i found where it is mentioned that an idetification card may be required. Knowing how every other government program works, I cant imagine they will just sign people up without proof of income. And every program now rquires proof of citizenship.




rulemylife -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/11/2009 7:53:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I'm not talking about Obama's reaction to Wilson's interjection. I'm talking about his political M.O..

The text of Obama's speech:

NYT page 2:

But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics.

NYT page 4:

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

NYT page 7:

If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out.


***


Regardless of the truth of the "death panel" comment for Palin ("It's a higher truth"), he is saying that the opposition is lying, and to "call out" the liars.

Hoisted. Petard.

Firm


Yes, and they are lying , so is there a point you want to make or do we have to re-hash the "death panel" nonsense for the 100th time?

Or is he being impolite by calling those who spread lies liars?




tazzygirl -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/11/2009 8:01:58 PM)

So, i also found this... and im going to toss it out there even though i doubt anyone will take the time to look at...

From the health care bill....

(a) IN GENERAL.—
8 (1) OUTREACH.—The Commissioner shall con9
duct outreach activities consistent with subsection
10 (c), including through use of appropriate entities as
11 described in paragraph (4) of such subsection, to in12
form and educate individuals and employers about
13 the Health Insurance Exchange and Exchange-par14
ticipating health benefits plan options. Such out15
reach shall include outreach specific to vulnerable
16 populations, such as children, individuals with dis17
abilities, individuals with mental illness, and individ18
uals with other cognitive impairments.
19 (2) ELIGIBILITY.—The Commissioner shall
20 make timely determinations of whether individuals
21 and employers are Exchange-eligible individuals and
22 employers (as defined in section 202).
23 (3) ENROLLMENT.—The Commissioner shall es24
tablish and carry out an enrollment process for Ex25
change-eligible individuals and employers, including

96
•HR 3200 IH
1 at community locations, in accordance with sub2
section (b).
3 (b) ENROLLMENT PROCESS.—
4 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall es5
tablish a process consistent with this title for enroll6
ments in Exchange-participating health benefits
7 plans. Such process shall provide for enrollment
8 through means such as the mail, by telephone, elec9
tronically, and in person.


....

(B) SUBSIDIZED INDIVIDUALS DE9
SCRIBED.—An individual described in this sub10
paragraph is an Exchange-eligible individual
11 who is either of the following:
12 (i) AFFORDABILITY CREDIT ELIGIBLE
13 INDIVIDUALS.—The individual—
14 (I) has applied for, and been de15
termined eligible for, affordability
16 credits under subtitle C;
17 (II) has not opted out from re18
ceiving such affordability credit; and
19 (III) does not otherwise enroll in
20 another Exchange-participating health
21 benefits plan.





rulemylife -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/11/2009 8:16:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Yes there is a provision in the pending Bill to preclude participation by undocumented workers; however there is NO verification or enforcement.


Considering the fact there are several versions of the bill still being debated, how exactly do you know this?

quote:


Problem is, in a recent Rasmussen poll 83% of the people would be against the health-care Bill if it used US taxpayer money to fund health care for undocumented workers.


Problem is Rasmussen is an avowed conservative who regularly is on Fox talk shows presenting his conservative point of view.

Any guesses about how impartially his poll questions are worded?




DesFIP -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/11/2009 8:20:28 PM)

How do they expect to stop diseases from spreading? I can't imagine the swine flu, for example, to not infect illegal aliens. Nor outbreaks of whooping cough which are more likely among illegals who don't receive health care including vaccinations. Anybody want a return to the good old days where people came down with polio?




FirmhandKY -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/11/2009 8:34:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I'm not talking about Obama's reaction to Wilson's interjection. I'm talking about his political M.O..

The text of Obama's speech:

NYT page 2:

But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics.

NYT page 4:

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

NYT page 7:

If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out.


***


Regardless of the truth of the "death panel" comment for Palin ("It's a higher truth"), he is saying that the opposition is lying, and to "call out" the liars.

Hoisted. Petard.

Firm


Yes, and they are lying , so is there a point you want to make or do we have to re-hash the "death panel" nonsense for the 100th time?

Or is he being impolite by calling those who spread lies liars?


Why are you talking about "Death Panels"?

Is it because you can't talk about the real issue, about Obama telling an "untruth" or "spun" version of the facts vis-a-vis the health care plan, and the coverage of illegals?

And that, according to his own words, what you do to people who do such a thing is "call them out"?

Which is what Wilson did.

All in accordance with the President's explicit desire and directions.

What's to complain about, other than the venue and historical "standards of decorum"? I acknowledge that Wilson violated those, and he apologized and the apology was accepted.

But I also don't care anymore that such a thing might offend the left. I too have learned something from them.

Calling people with who you have a difference of opinion a "liar" is a very, very common left trick, in order to 1) anger the opponent (being called a liar is considered "fighting words") and 2) deflect from the actual point or issue under discussion.

DomKen does it all the time. SpinnerofTails uses it. You just used it. Many of the far left of center posters use it. Obama uses it. Now the right is starting to use it.

So, where do you think this is going to lead us? The use of such "debate" tactics has been effective against much of the right because we more often have attempted to actually discuss, rather than "isolate, personalize, insult and marginalize" our opponents.

You think this is going to end up well? I don't.

Firm




rulemylife -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/11/2009 9:06:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

DomKen does it all the time. SpinnerofTails uses it. You just used it. Many of the far left of center posters use it. Obama uses it. Now the right is starting to use it.

So, where do you think this is going to lead us? The use of such "debate" tactics has been effective against much of the right because we more often have attempted to actually discuss, rather than "isolate, personalize, insult and marginalize" our opponents.

You think this is going to end up well? I don't.

Firm


No I don't think it will end up well and I don't support it.

But there is a difference between calling someone a liar as a debate tactic and actually proving lies have been told, which is the whole "death panel" controversy.  One huge lie.

And it is very difficult to debate with those who insist on repeating proven lies.




SpinnerofTales -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/11/2009 9:13:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Why are you talking about "Death Panels"?

Is it because you can't talk about the real issue, about Obama telling an "untruth" or "spun" version of the facts vis-a-vis the health care plan, and the coverage of illegals?


No, Firm, we are talking about Death Panels because YOU brought it up in your post, admitted it was a lie and then started whining about "but it's you Dems who started lying so we have no choice but to lie too" and then claim that, though the idea of Death Panels was indeed a bald faced lie, it was a "higher truth". That put the subject into play.

quote:

And that, according to his own words, what you do to people who do such a thing is "call them out"?

Which is what Wilson did.

All in accordance with the President's explicit desire and directions.

What's to complain about, other than the venue and historical "standards of decorum"? I acknowledge that Wilson violated those, and he apologized and the apology was accepted.


Firm, there are times when where you do something is as important as what you do. Urinating in the bathroom is a normal and acceptable thing. Urinating on the dining room table is strongly frowned upon. If you can't tell the difference, these posts are unlikely to do you much good. What Wilson did was bring the level of partisan ugliness to a new and previously unheard of level. Though it seems impossible, he dumbed down the discussion. Your posting at least seemed rather supportive of that action. When you bold face words like "folk hero" you give that impression.

quote:

But I also don't care anymore that such a thing might offend the left. I too have learned something from them.

Calling people with who you have a difference of opinion a "liar" is a very, very common left trick, in order to 1) anger the opponent (being called a liar is considered "fighting words") and 2) deflect from the actual point or issue under discussion.

DomKen does it all the time. SpinnerofTails uses it. You just used it. Many of the far left of center posters use it. Obama uses it. Now the right is starting to use it.

So, where do you think this is going to lead us? The use of such "debate" tactics has been effective against much of the right because we more often have attempted to actually discuss, rather than "isolate, personalize, insult and marginalize" our opponents.


Once again, the whine is served. It grows so wearisome for you to critisize something and the excuse doing it because the "left did it.". It's an old tired horse and would have safeworded a long time ago if it wasn't dead. Stop beating it. I think any parent would back me up when I say that crying "But THEY started it" is not an acceptable excuse for anything. At the very least show the backbone to accept responsibility for what you do, rather than committing an offense you personally rail against and then wailing like a victim.

quote:

You think this is going to end up well? I don't.


Would you like to see this end well? Perhaps you could start by ceasing to lie, to cite articles gleaned from sites that carry stories like "Obama fucks sheep: Is this the Change We Can Believe In? and blaming the left for the fact that you have abandoned every principal of reasonable discussion you claim to support. Perhaps then you would get the respect you feel so sadly lacking towards your postings.

Ceasing to yell "Alinsky, Alinsky" would also be welcome but I don't want to ask too much.





ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/11/2009 11:00:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales


Firm, there are times when where you do something is as important as what you do. Urinating in the bathroom is a normal and acceptable thing. Urinating on the dining room table is strongly frowned upon. If you can't tell the difference, these posts are unlikely to do you much good.



Oh, I liked that. Damn. The whole post was terrific, but I particularly liked that. Nicely crafted!




Arpig -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/11/2009 11:10:58 PM)

Hi tazzy, I took the time to read it. Thanks for digging it up. So it appears that there is indeed some provision for IDing people who apply for exchange-participating plans, and thus also for the subsidies for the same. It just doesn't happen to define them...it says that the commissioner will establish a process to do so. Now if I recall correctly, Obama said this plan would be in place in a few years, so there  is some time yet to determine just what process will be used and what ID requirements will be instituted. I still think that Heller's idea of using the Medicaid identification program is a good one...the program is already in place and the various ins & outs are already established...it seems tome it would be cheaper and easier to expand an existing program than to create a whole new one.

Once again, thanks for plowing through the published bill tazzy.




SpinnerofTales -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/12/2009 7:35:53 AM)

quote:

Once again, thanks for plowing through the published bill tazzy. ORIGINAL: Arpig



I add my kudos. With all the arguments and opinion, tazzy is the one with the wisdom and patience to actually wade through the actual politicalese of the bill and find out what was really there. By doing so, she has allowed us to frame the debate correctly. It is no longer, "should there be an enforcement mechanism for insuring illegal aliens don't get coverage under this plan". It is "should the enforcement mechanism be detailed as part of this plan or left more fluid by not being set in stone with the plans passage". It's a much more valid consideration, if not as lurid.

I think we should assign tazzy to look through all 1,500 pages of this bill, memorize it and then we can just ask her when we have a question? Who's up for giving her that honor? :grin:





tazzygirl -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/12/2009 7:40:03 AM)

Whoa!!!

i so didnt ace memorization in school... except... funny enough... in political science class!!!

grins




mnottertail -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/12/2009 7:40:47 AM)

Dude, don't tazz me with 1500 pages of rote.............




MarsBonfire -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/12/2009 9:23:33 AM)

The whole thing with Wilson's insulting outburst is just a distraction anyway. By focusing on yet another republican making an ass of himself, the debate gets shifted away from the real question: Do we want some modest reforms to the health care system, or not?

The GOP can sit there, and Twitter and be on the web all they want with their blackberries. They can wave their 19 page joke of a bill in the air and pretend they have a viable alternative if they want. But if they want to be taken seriously as a bunch of ADULTS, in the highest political venue there is on Earth... then they should learn to SHUT THE FUCK UP while the President is talking.

A joint session of congress is NOT some town hall meeting where a neanderthal from a trailer park can stand up and start insulting the people behind the podium.




Irishknight -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/12/2009 9:50:08 AM)

Both sides have been disrespectful in such venues for years. They all need to learn what Mars is suggesting. They get into office and act like a bunch of asanine children playing a game of chess with our well being and give themselves more money than any one human needs to not do the job they were elected to do.
I don't think either side has come up with an acceptable plan yet. They keep adding this and that and trying to hide what they're slipping in and they forget that its about health care for the people of this country.
Mind you, if they worked on ways to help bring back jobs to this country, more people might be able to afford health insurance.




SpinnerofTales -> RE: When they all agree, you know you screwed up (9/12/2009 10:52:41 AM)

quote:

I don't think either side has come up with an acceptable plan yet. They keep adding this and that and trying to hide what they're slipping in and they forget that its about health care for the people of this country.




I am reminded of an old saying. "An elephant is a mouse designed by congressional commite".




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875