RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry

RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (Full Version)

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

Message

Moonhead -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 12:01:06 PM)
If you resist with enough violence, they'll probably kill you writing a parking ticket. I'm not sure that's quite proof of an evil conspiracy, though.

luckydawg -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 12:07:42 PM)
No, its not part of any sort of evil conspiracry, not at all. Never said it was. But all laws are backed by state sanctioned violence. That's what laws are. They are not suggestions. But Trolls want to argue it, simply because I said it.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 12:22:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg No, its not part of any sort of evil conspiracry, not at all. Never said it was. But all laws are backed by state sanctioned violence. That's what laws are. They are not suggestions. But Trolls want to argue it, simply because I said it. No, I want to argue it because it's silly. You're complaining about health care reform because you say people will be forced by threat of death to pay for the health care of lazy people. And that's an absolutely stunningly ridiculous argument.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 12:24:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Panda, so is it the "or" that is confusing you? "Right. So by that logic, the government forces me to shovel my sidewalk, wear a seatbelt, and put a smoke detector in my house on pain of death. This is one of the most bizarre arguments I've seen here in months. " Why is it that so many liberals have to change what I say in order to argue agaisnt me. It's rather sad and quite obvious. You have to do those things (assuming they are part of your local laws) under pain of enforcement, which includes escalating to violence if need be. Who said I was confused? I'm quoting you directly. I'm not changing a thing. You're saying that ultimately, the state may kill you for refusing to comply with the law. Do you even understand a word you're saying?

luckydawg -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 1:19:26 PM)
Look Troll, you are seriously confused. and are having trouble remembering what you wrote. Like a pathetic troll you changed what I wrote to, "Right. So by that logic, the government forces me to shovel my sidewalk, wear a seatbelt, and put a smoke detector in my house on pain of death. " Which is very different thatn what I wrote. And changing what was written seems to be the only way several (not all of you) of the prolific leftists can make an argument. And also it was not me complaining about it. Tazzy asked a question, and I answered her accuretly and correctly. But if this law is passed, it will be required to obey it. and if you refuse (just like with every other law), eventually violence will be used to force complaince. Please go hump someone elses leg....

luckydawg -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 1:23:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Panda, so is it the "or" that is confusing you? "Right. So by that logic, the government forces me to shovel my sidewalk, wear a seatbelt, and put a smoke detector in my house on pain of death. This is one of the most bizarre arguments I've seen here in months. " Why is it that so many liberals have to change what I say in order to argue agaisnt me. It's rather sad and quite obvious. You have to do those things (assuming they are part of your local laws) under pain of enforcement, which includes escalating to violence if need be. Who said I was confused? I'm quoting you directly. I'm not changing a thing. You're saying that ultimately, the state may kill you for refusing to comply with the law. Do you even understand a word you're saying? Maybe you are not smart enough to understand that Quoting someone Directly involves using the exact same words......not changing them and dropping the qualifiers. But I know you are, and again you are playing dumb, because you have no actuall response. As the folks reading along at home can plainly see.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 1:30:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg You can get killed durring the subduing process, if you resist with enough violence. Leagally with sate sanction. I just find it funny the way the trolls attack me, and anything I say. Even if it is 100% true, they try to twist it to something else. Must have a chrush on me or something. But the crime you are getting killed for isnt the trivialities cited, but the crime of assault on a police officer.

luckydawg -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 2:25:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: SeekingAZ Some of us have actually read portions of the bill. Those that have know there's is no "choice" at all. I suspect you haven't and don't want to as failure of the bill would mean you'd actually have to pay your own way in this world as opposed to someone else being forced through the action of government fines, jail time and eventual violence to do what you should do for yourself. Eventual violence? do expland please. I have read the bill. Im interested in understanding what you read that i missed. Tazzy, eventuall violence is the basis of every law. If you refuse to obey, you will be forced, if you resist, violence will be used against you, if you fight back you will either be subdued or killed, (or a small chance you get away and live in hiding with a fake name). Thats what laws are. All laws.... That is what I wrote, I have no interest in debating what Dom Ken changed it to. State violence is behind all laws. I astand by that. I did nto say snow shovelling on pain of death. I said eventually you will be forced to comply, and the state will rachet up the violence, if you want to go that way. I give my previous example, when an officer tries to give you a seat belt ticket, tell him to Fuck off and drive away.... see what happens

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 2:27:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Look Troll, you are seriously confused. and are having trouble remembering what you wrote. Ah! Wonderful! Now we're resorting to name-calling when we get frustrated because we are unable to make a coherent argument. Charming. Thank you for elevating the debate. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Like a pathetic troll you changed what I wrote to, "Right. So by that logic, the government forces me to shovel my sidewalk, wear a seatbelt, and put a smoke detector in my house on pain of death. " Which is very different thatn what I wrote. And changing what was written seems to be the only way several (not all of you) of the prolific leftists can make an argument. Really. In what way? What was different? You specifically said that - quote: eventuall violence is the basis of every law. If you refuse to obey, you will be forced, if you resist, violence will be used against you, if you fight back you will either be subdued or killed, (or a small chance you get away and live in hiding with a fake name). Thats what laws are. All laws.... What "qualifier" did I miss? By that logic, if I refuse to shovel my sidewalk the government will begin an escalating process of enforcing compliance, and if I resist the process they may ultimately kill me. This is not in any way a misrepresentation of what you said - this is exactly what you said when you said "every law." quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg But if this law is passed, it will be required to obey it. and if you refuse (just like with every other law), eventually violence will be used to force complaince. Which is, again, exactly what you just said you didn't say. I ask you again - do you even understand what you write? I mean, it's bad enough when you don't understand what other people are saying; but when you don't even understand what you're saying, it's a rather sad state of affairs.

luckydawg -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 2:38:42 PM)
THe qualifier of "or", which I have already pointed out to you.... "By that logic, if I refuse to shovel my sidewalk the government will begin an escalating process of enforcing compliance, and if I resist the process they may ultimately kill me." Which is not your previous statement. Which you don't have the intellectuall honesty to stand by.... your new quote is exactly right, and true. The same goes for all laws. Otherwise they would be suggestions, not laws Now go hump someone elses leg.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 2:44:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda No. Explain it. He said that it violence (enforcement) is the ultimate end of every law. He did not say that the particular punishment for every law is death... Good. And neither did I!

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 2:46:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg THe qualifier of "or", which I have already pointed out to you.... "By that logic, if I refuse to shovel my sidewalk the government will begin an escalating process of enforcing compliance, and if I resist the process they may ultimately kill me." Which is not your previous statement. Which you don't have the intellectuall honesty to stand by.... You're lying again. I may not be repeating myself word for word like some sort of parrot, but I'm not saying anything different than what I've been saying all along. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg your new quote is exactly right, and true. The same goes for all laws. Otherwise they would be suggestions, not laws OK... let me make sure I understand this, because this is getting more fascinating and more hilarious by the minute. You're now arguing that saying " if you fight back you will either be subdued or killed" is substantially different than saying " if you fight back you may be killed." Please explain this difference.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 3:36:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda No. Explain it. He said that it violence (enforcement) is the ultimate end of every law. He did not say that the particular punishment for every law is death... Good. And neither did I! Yup, you sure didnt. You just applied it to asinine trivialities like seat belts and snow shoveling. A distinction without a difference, the implication of citing the trivialities is any crime.

luckydawg -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 4:57:40 PM)
Panda, do you think the readers are so stupid they can't remember what each of our original statements were? You changed yours, significantly. I stayed with mine.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 5:21:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Panda, do you think the readers are so stupid they can't remember what each of our original statements were? You changed yours, significantly. I stayed with mine. The readers? No, I don't think they're stupid at all. I can hardly tell you how eagerly I await your showing me where I changed what i was saying. Until you do, I'm going to continue calling bullshit on you and demanding an apology for calling me a liar. Man up and put your money where your mouth is.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 5:36:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda No. Explain it. He said that it violence (enforcement) is the ultimate end of every law. He did not say that the particular punishment for every law is death... Good. And neither did I! Yup, you sure didnt. You just applied it to asinine trivialities like seat belts and snow shoveling. A distinction without a difference, the implication of citing the trivialities is any crime. You're confused. Wait, let me be more specific. You seem to have me mixed up with Mr. Dawg. He was the one who said "all laws, every law." I was the one pointing out the, uh, "asinine triviality" of his argument. I'm rather surprised that I have to point that out to you. I gave you credit for being somewhat brighter than that. My apologies for misjudging you.

luckydawg -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 5:39:26 PM)
"Right. So by that logic, the government forces me to shovel my sidewalk, wear a seatbelt, and put a smoke detector in my house on pain of death. " Thats your first statement, where you changed what I said, because that is what trolls do. "on pain of death" means the death penalty, which is not even close to what I said. " if you fight back you may be killed." Hten in post 52 you switch to" " if you fight back you may be killed." which is indeed very different Futher more, this is a lie on your part..."You're complaining about health care reform because you say people will be forced by threat of death to pay for the health care of lazy people. And that's an absolutely stunningly ridiculous argument. " proving you are nothing but a troll....With no intellectuall integrity...

willbeurdaddy -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 6:12:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda No. Explain it. He said that it violence (enforcement) is the ultimate end of every law. He did not say that the particular punishment for every law is death... Good. And neither did I! Yup, you sure didnt. You just applied it to asinine trivialities like seat belts and snow shoveling. A distinction without a difference, the implication of citing the trivialities is any crime. You're confused. Wait, let me be more specific. You seem to have me mixed up with Mr. Dawg. He was the one who said "all laws, every law." I was the one pointing out the, uh, "asinine triviality" of his argument. I'm rather surprised that I have to point that out to you. I gave you credit for being somewhat brighter than that. My apologies for misjudging you. and Ive never given you credit to be able to formulate a logical train of thought. My apologies for being so accurate.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 6:13:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg "Right. So by that logic, the government forces me to shovel my sidewalk, wear a seatbelt, and put a smoke detector in my house on pain of death. " Thats your first statement, where you changed what I said, because that is what trolls do. "on pain of death" means the death penalty, which is not even close to what I said. " if you fight back you may be killed." Hten in post 52 you switch to" " if you fight back you may be killed." which is indeed very different Futher more, this is a lie on your part..."You're complaining about health care reform because you say people will be forced by threat of death to pay for the health care of lazy people. And that's an absolutely stunningly ridiculous argument. " proving you are nothing but a troll....With no intellectuall integrity... Are you drinking Thanksgiving wine early? Your sprelling his diteriorated [sic, for the morons who dont have a sense of humor...oh, wait, they wouldnt know what sic means anyway]

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/25/2009 6:30:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg "Right. So by that logic, the government forces me to shovel my sidewalk, wear a seatbelt, and put a smoke detector in my house on pain of death. " Thats your first statement, where you changed what I said, because that is what trolls do. "on pain of death" means the death penalty, which is not even close to what I said. " if you fight back you may be killed." Hten in post 52 you switch to" " if you fight back you may be killed." which is indeed very different Ahhhh..... so that's it. Like any expression, the phrase "on pain of" has multiple meanings - most commonly, "subject to" or "at risk of." If you're only aware of one meaning of the phrase - or if you just decided to jerk your knee and consider only that one meaning - that's not my problem. Maybe you should get out more, read some books - try to become a little more literate. It might save you from embarrassing yourself like this in future debates. quote: ORIGINAL: luckydawg Futher more, this is a lie on your part..."You're complaining about health care reform because you say people will be forced by threat of death to pay for the health care of lazy people. And that's an absolutely stunningly ridiculous argument. " proving you are nothing but a troll....With no intellectuall integrity... And more name-calling. What are we, in 5th grade? What happened to you? You used to be a guy you could at least have a conversation with, even if you disagreed. A guy I took seriously and had a lot of respect for as a poster. I don't know what the heck I was thinking. But anyway, as to the substance of this latest hissy fit, that's exactly what you said, although not in those words. You said - quote: failure of the bill would mean you'd actually have to pay your own way in this world as opposed to someone else being forced through the action of government fines, jail time and eventual violence to do what you should do for yourself. And, in later posts, you acknowledged that when you are speaking of "eventual violence," it includes the possibility of the government killing you for refusing to comply with the law. So I ask again - do you even understand anything that you say, or do you just blurt out whatever shit happens to be drifting through your head at any given moment and then spend the rest of the day clenching your little fists, stomping your little foot, and whining that that wasn't what you meant?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875