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

luckydawg -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 1:00:58 PM)

It is obviously a Bugs Bunny reference....



Musicmystery -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 1:15:48 PM)

Sigh.

I know.



luckydawg -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 2:00:51 PM)

Hmm, I just don't get the liberal fascination with playing dumb to score points in a debate....



Musicmystery -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 2:03:21 PM)

Hmmm, I don't get your trouble with understanding that sometimes people are just having some fun.

So I had some word play fun. I didn't realize that only liberals use dictionaries.

Btw, when are you going to realize that the entire world isn't either/or liberal/conservative?

And how the hell did anyone "score points in a debate" with that?

Not everyone equates one-liner swipes with "argument."

The difference is, I know it's not a "conservative" thing--it's your thing.



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 4:21:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Hmm, I just don't get the liberal fascination with playing dumb to score points in a debate....


I think it's hilarious the way you repeatedly accuse people of "playing dumb" when they can't figure out what the fuck you're talking about. It never seems to occur to you that maybe - just maybe - the real problem is that nobody can figure out what the fuck you're talking about.





luckydawg -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 4:52:13 PM)

and I think it hillarious the way you pretend to not understand, and then throw a fit, while making a fake accusation.

Like you did here, http://www.collarchat.com/m_2918068/mpage_3/tm.htm# post 60 of this thread.


And on pain of does not have multiple meanings, thoug I understand why you want to pretend it does.




tazzygirl -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 4:59:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain

If anyone is interested to know I read this yesterday. I just wish these people would go away, they have no shame for how they make other people suffer.

White House releases list of health care lobbyist visits

http://www.thereporter.com/ci_13872471?source=rss

: The list includes George Halvorson, chairman and CEO of Kaiser Health Plans; Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association; Kenneth Kies, a Washington lobbyist who represents Blue Cross/Blue Shield, among other clients; Billy Tauzin, head of PhRMA, the drug industry lobby; Richard Umbdenstock, chief of the American Hospital Association, and numerous lobbyists.


KP makes other people suffer? You obviously have no clue about health care cost management.


Kaiser has made many people suffer.



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 5:19:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

and I think it hillarious the way you pretend to not understand, and then throw a fit, while making a fake accusation.

Like you did here, http://www.collarchat.com/m_2918068/mpage_3/tm.htm# post 60 of this thread.


You're right, I did mistakenly attribute a quote to you. I don't know how I misread that quote string. I don't have any excuse for it, I made a mistake plain and simple. And I'm sorry about that.

Of course, everything else I took you to task for, I stand behind 100%. It was a ridiculous argument, regardless of whether you were the first to make it or just chiming in with the poster who made it first.


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg
And on pain of does not have multiple meanings, thoug I understand why you want to pretend it does.


15 seconds on google brought back an abundance of links showing that - once again - you don't know what you're talking about. Here are just the first two -

http://www.answers.com/topic/on-pain-of

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/on+pain+of



luckydawg -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 5:29:25 PM)

Wierd both of those sites only give one meaning....not the multiple you claim.....

"Also, under pain of. Subject to the penalty of a specific punishment." Which in our use was "death"

"on pain of something (slightly formal)
at risk of experiencing something bad" again the something in our discussion was "death". And the second notes it is used only for bad things. It would be ridiculous to say "under pain of an ice cream dessert"

So thank you for posting those 2 links that agree with me 100%. I didn't feel like wasting my time for something so obvious.

And you are actually still trying to claim, that ultimatley violence is not part of law enforcemnent. Sevral of the left wing posters (even RML) have agreed with me. It goes in the no shit Sherlock catagory.



ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 6:05:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

Wierd both of those sites only give one meaning....not the multiple you claim.....

"Also, under pain of. Subject to the penalty of a specific punishment." Which in our use was "death"

"on pain of something (slightly formal)
at risk of experiencing something bad" again the something in our discussion was "death". And the second notes it is used only for bad things. It would be ridiculous to say "under pain of an ice cream dessert"

So thank you for posting those 2 links that agree with me 100%. I didn't feel like wasting my time for something so obvious.


I have to admit, I was looking forward to seeing how you were going to try to weasel out of this one. I'm in a bad mood tonight, and needed a good laugh. But I didn't expect you to try anything this pathetic. Funnier than hell that you did, though, I have to admit.

You say the two websites each give only one meaning, the same meaning - and then you quote two different definitions from the websites; "subject to" and "at risk of." Both of which differ somewhat from the meaning you assigned, a meaning which you insisted was the only meaning. So that's three similar but nonetheless different definitions, and you take that as proof that you were right? I ask you once again - do you even have any idea what the fuck you're talking about?


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg
And you are actually still trying to claim, that ultimatley violence is not part of law enforcemnent. Sevral of the left wing posters (even RML) have agreed with me. It goes in the no shit Sherlock catagory.


Learn to read, or if it's too much to ask of you, hire a 6-year old to read it for you. I never said i disagreed with it.  I said it was a ridiculous argument to make. If you're going to disagree with a law on that basis, then you must necessarily disagree with every single law on the books, for the same reason.



luckydawg -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 6:44:22 PM)

See thats why I called you a troll. You agree with what I said, yet you have been arguing the point for pages. Those 2 definitions mean the exact same thing, the one I said they did.

And do you need mental health services or something? This is the third time you have accused me of making an argument, that I didn't make. 3 times, you even apologized to me for the false accusation once, yet you are repeating it. You apologized on this page.

Again, Tazzy asked a question, and I explained it. A silly troll jumped in, twisting what I said (even though the troll now admits I was 100% correct in what I said) in order to go on for a few pages playing dumb and changing its position (as trolls often do), in order to try to show me wrong, when I clearly was right.



"If you're going to disagree with a law on that basis, then you must necessarily disagree with every single law on the books, for the same reason."

This is just stupid, and not even close to logical. That does not follow at all. It can be an argument against laws you do not like. But I am very happy that the law will bust heads or kill to prevent Child Abuser, or Rape. It is one of the reasons I oppose marijuana prohibition laws however.



tazzygirl -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 6:46:34 PM)

Hell, i forgot the question i asked.. lol



luckydawg -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 6:48:24 PM)

http://www.collarchat.com/m_2918068/mpage_1/tm.htm# here you go Tazzy.



rulemylife -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 9:14:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


Better not sell out? They already have, didnt you notice bills have passed in both the House and Senate?


No, I for one didn't notice that.

Tell me about that bill that passed the Senate.



rulemylife -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 9:27:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg
And you are actually still trying to claim, that ultimatley violence is not part of law enforcemnent. Sevral of the left wing posters (even RML) have agreed with me. It goes in the no shit Sherlock catagory.


Show me where in the fuck I agreed with you.

Now you are trying to compound your ludicrous argument by lying about others supporting it.








FatDomDaddy -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 10:33:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brain


Maybe it's Joe Lieberman, who received over $1 million in campaign contributions from the insurance industry last year. Joe Lieberman's main aim is to kill the bill and he will do or say or lie in order for that to happen. Joe Lieberman is a lost cause. The real problem is if Democrats pass a health care bill with a strong public option their numbers improve and they will have a better chance of being re-elected.

StopSenatestalling.com
http://stopsenatestalling.com/

Why should launching wars and cutting taxes for the rich require only 50 votes while saving lives requires 60?
Americans didn't vote for the status quo last year they voted for change. Republicans are just trying to maintain the status quo.

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

Maybe this bill is just way to expensive ? Maybe they know that their constituents do not like the bill ? Maybe they are worried that the seniors will revolt when 500 billion will be cut from medicare ? Maybe they are worried about being re elected in 2010 ? Maybe it is just a bad bill all the way around ?

quote:

Maybe this bill is just way to expensive ? Maybe they know that their constituents do not like the bill ? Maybe they are worried that the seniors will revolt when 500 billion will be cut from medicare ? Maybe they are worried about being re elected in 2010 ? Maybe it is just a bad bill all the way around ?




Obviously you don't remember the 60 votes Democracts forced Bush's Judical nominees to get do you?



rulemylife -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 11:10:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

Obviously you don't remember the 60 votes Democracts forced Bush's Judical nominees to get do you?


So, what are you saying?  That this is payback?



luckydawg -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/27/2009 11:48:25 PM)

RML, in post 70....you quoted me saying,

"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. "

and responded' " No Shit."

Thats agreeing....

It is a no shit statement, it is absolulty true. If you refuse to comply with the law, eventually violence will be used. Thats what laws are. All laws. They are not suggestions.

Though I do understand if I said fire is hot, you would disagree, because as trolls are wont to do, you attack the person, not the ideas.



FatDomDaddy -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/28/2009 12:27:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy

Obviously you don't remember the 60 votes Democracts forced Bush's Judical nominees to get do you?


So, what are you saying?  That this is payback?



I am saying, that is the way the Senate works.

When Bill Frist tried to use reconciliation to force the judical votes Democrats went nuts.

You don't recall the Nuclear Option and how the left howled?



rulemylife -> RE: If Corrupt Democrats Kill the Public Option, It’s All Harry (11/28/2009 12:32:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

RML, in post 70....you quoted me saying,

"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. "

and responded' " No Shit."

Thats agreeing....

It is a no shit statement, it is absolulty true. If you refuse to comply with the law, eventually violence will be used. Thats what laws are. All laws. They are not suggestions.

Though I do understand if I said fire is hot, you would disagree, because as trolls are wont to do, you attack the person, not the ideas.


Well, let's post my whole remark, and then tell me whether I'm agreeing with you.  Because either you are too ignorant to understand sarcasm or blatantly lying.


quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

No shit.

So if I refuse to shovel my sidewalk the police are going to come, beat me and haul me to jail?

That's good to know and well-timed, Home Depot is having a sale on snow blowers.





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

Valid CSS!




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