mnealtx 0 #101 November 24, 2009 QuoteWe have signed on to UDHR and Section 8. of our Constiution allows congress to make you pay for someone else's healthcare by virtue of the fact that the good healthof it's citizens is directly connected to the General Welfare of the United States. Sweet - so when a Republican becomes President, Congress can pass a bill making everyone send their kids to religious schools since "it's connected to the General Welfare". IOW - bullshit. Section 8 covers what monies Congress can collect. It says nothing about citizens buying anything. QuoteYou have a problem with the Congress making you BUY something? I have a problem with that too. And yet you're still all rah-rah for the bill. QuoteThe bill needs to be amended to open up Medicare to everyone instead of making anyone BUY insurance from private insurers. Gonna be hard to bring many more ppl in, once they reduce doctor's payments and pull half a TRILLION dollars out of it, isn't it? QuoteAfter the Senate Bill passes I hope they will be able to improve upon it once it goes into conference. This isn't over yet. No, it's not - and the best way they can improve on this is vote it down and start over.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #102 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteWe have signed on to UDHR and Section 8. of our Constiution allows congress to make you pay for someone else's healthcare by virtue of the fact that the good healthof it's citizens is directly connected to the General Welfare of the United States. Sweet - so when a Republican becomes President, Congress can pass a bill making everyone send their kids to religious schools since "it's connected to the General Welfare". "Article the third [Amendment I] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #103 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteWe have signed on to UDHR and Section 8. of our Constiution allows congress to make you pay for someone else's healthcare by virtue of the fact that the good healthof it's citizens is directly connected to the General Welfare of the United States. Sweet - so when a Republican becomes President, Congress can pass a bill making everyone send their kids to religious schools since "it's connected to the General Welfare". "Article the third [Amendment I] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The spiritual health of the citizenry is directly connected to the general welfare of the USA, so section 8 applies. Sorry if you don't like it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #104 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWe have signed on to UDHR and Section 8. of our Constiution allows congress to make you pay for someone else's healthcare by virtue of the fact that the good healthof it's citizens is directly connected to the General Welfare of the United States. Sweet - so when a Republican becomes President, Congress can pass a bill making everyone send their kids to religious schools since "it's connected to the General Welfare". "Article the third [Amendment I] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The spiritual health of the citizenry is directly connected to the general welfare of the USA, so section 8 applies. Sorry if you don't like it. You are scaring me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #105 November 24, 2009 QuoteYou are scaring me. exactly the point he's making about government overreaching their limits, so glad you get that finally ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #106 November 24, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou are scaring me. exactly the point he's making about government overreaching their limits, so glad you get that finally Took long enough, didn't it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #107 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote Quote You are scaring me. exactly the point he's making about government overreaching their limits, so glad you get that finally Took long enough, didn't it? The politics of fear. I forgot to add the sarcasm so you have declared victory! Congratulations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #108 November 24, 2009 Quote No, you stated you thought it was a RW site.... Lame attempt at a back peddle [SIC] for you. Ohhh, I think I'll be a **** and correct spelling. (backpedal) Trust me, I don't care. I'm not so desperate to strawman the argument like some. I briefed the site and it appeared to be RW, so what? All the RW kooks here who think Obama is a Muslim terrorist and there are death squads as provided in the HC Bill. And I'm crucified? Check yourselves. Quote I was perfectly able to read what you wrote... You clearly thought The Onion was a RW site pushing RW agenda. I don't deny that, see if you can get on with your life with that knowledge. I mean, you have all those death squads to hunt down and while you're at it, see if you can find the real killers of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. Quote Well, that explains a lot actually. You assume that anyone that disagrees with you is like the people you disagree with. No, Want to see facts and data, I don't care about which people feel which way. Quote BTW still waiting on your reply to post #114 in this thread: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3728265;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;;page=unread#unread I'll get right on it. Don't act as tho I don't post enough here. I mean Jebus, I don't avoid shit. BTW, look at my posting style vs yours or just about anyone's and notice how I address all statements within a post? Yea, perhaps save the post-didging BS for another world. Quote Why do I think you are just avoiding real discussions like normal? Why do you cherry-pick posts? I don't and I don't avoid posts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #109 November 24, 2009 QuoteOhhh, I think I'll be a **** and correct spelling. (backpedal) Trust me, I don't care. I'm not so desperate to strawman the argument like some. Uh, don't look now, you just did. And you have a history of doing it. But once again lets look at my spelling. Back... Not forward. Peddle : Informal To seek to disseminate; give out peddle [ˈpɛdəl] vb 1. (Business / Commerce) to go from place to place selling (goods, esp small articles) 2. (Law / Recreational Drugs) (tr) to sell (illegal drugs, esp narcotics) 3. (tr) to advocate (ideas) persistently or importunately to peddle a new philosophy 4. (intr) Archaic to trifle So it actually fits...... QuoteI briefed the site and it appeared to be RW, so what? It and your rabid defense of it goes to show your inability to properly vet sources... And that from a guy that jumps all over people for their sources is hypocritical and frankly funny as hell. QuoteI don't deny that, see if you can get on with your life with that knowledge. I mean, you have all those death squads to hunt down and while you're at it, see if you can find the real killers of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. You did deny it. And you need to show where I stated those other claims from you.... You can't. Like normal, when you are down, you just make things up or start throwing insults."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #110 November 24, 2009 Quote Quote Ohhh, I think I'll be a **** and correct spelling. (backpedal) Trust me, I don't care. I'm not so desperate to strawman the argument like some. Uh, don't look now, you just did. And you have a history of doing it. But once again lets look at my spelling. Back... Not forward. Peddle : Informal To seek to disseminate; give out peddle [ˈpɛdəl] vb 1. (Business / Commerce) to go from place to place selling (goods, esp small articles) 2. (Law / Recreational Drugs) (tr) to sell (illegal drugs, esp narcotics) 3. (tr) to advocate (ideas) persistently or importunately to peddle a new philosophy 4. (intr) Archaic to trifle So it actually fits...... Quote I briefed the site and it appeared to be RW, so what? It and your rabid defense of it goes to show your inability to properly vet sources... And that from a guy that jumps all over people for their sources is hypocritical and frankly funny as hell. Quote I don't deny that, see if you can get on with your life with that knowledge. I mean, you have all those death squads to hunt down and while you're at it, see if you can find the real killers of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. You did deny it. And you need to show where I stated those other claims from you.... You can't. Like normal, when you are down, you just make things up or start throwing insults. OMG, I'll be back home later, dreaming of watching you spin out of this all day. then I'll address it. I'm not quote excited enough that I'm willing to be late, but almost . Ded yew theink yew wud nevur mak speeeling erurs? You've just been relegated to boring entertainment, even by your own who aren't so depserate they become anal-retentive spelling nannies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #111 November 24, 2009 QuoteOMG, I'll be back home later, dreaming of watching you spin out of this all day. then I'll address it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5f29ozOXpw QuoteDed yew theink yew wud nevur mak speeeling erurs? Nope, but the rate of mine to yours is nothing. QuoteYou've just been relegated to boring entertainment, even by your own who aren't so depserate they become anal-retentive spelling nannies. You have been the crazy old man on the corner for years now."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #112 November 25, 2009 Quote Yeah, because they've done SUCH a great job with Medicaid/Medicare... Yep, we should get rid of both of those too. People should have incentive to save for their own care in their "twilight years", rather than wasting money and waiting on a government handout. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #113 November 25, 2009 Quote Quote Yeah, because they've done SUCH a great job with Medicaid/Medicare... Yep, we should get rid of both of those too. People should have incentive to save for their own care in their "twilight years", rather than wasting money and waiting on a government handout. Medicare is not a "handout." Egads, why do people actually believe this? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 333 #114 November 25, 2009 Quote Medicare is not a "handout." Egads, why do people actually believe this? Sarcasm, Andy. I don't see that "medicare (health care) for all" is really any different than medicare for the retired, and can't see why anyone could be in favor of medicare coverage and against universal health care coverage. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #115 November 25, 2009 Quote Sarcasm I knew that. I was just seeing if you knew that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #116 November 25, 2009 SPELL NANNY WROTE: No, you stated you thought it was a RW site.... Lame attempt at a back peddle [SIC] for you. Quote Uh, don't look now, you just did. And you have a history of doing it. No, I have a history of pointing out when others do it. See, I still type quickly and still make several typing errors at times, so wouldn't I be a hypocrite to make spelling errors and originate petty little whining tantrums over it? I don't, but I do point out spelling nannies who do make a hobby of trying to diminish the content by looking for spelling/grammar/punctuation errors. An error in ignorance is one thing, an error here or there in spelling is normal. Quote But once again lets look at my spelling. Back... Not forward. Peddle : Informal To seek to disseminate; give out peddle [ˈpɛdəl] vb 1. (Business / Commerce) to go from place to place selling (goods, esp small articles) 2. (Law / Recreational Drugs) (tr) to sell (illegal drugs, esp narcotics) 3. (tr) to advocate (ideas) persistently or importunately to peddle a new philosophy 4. (intr) Archaic to trifle So it actually fits...... It's not the spelling, it's the usage, genius. You still don't understand, do you? Let me work slowly with you. It was actually spelled correctly, it's just the 2 words don't work together in your intended use and syntax-wise are just awkward. I would never hunt that out, but with spelling nannies I do. Here is the original post by me: The joke's on you, I stated it was satire Your response: No, you stated you thought it was a RW site.... Lame attempt at a back peddle for you. So to apply your new logic and defintion, I was back disseminating, right? Dude, walk away, you just look silly. Here's what you were trying to state: Backpedal - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/backpedal back·ped·al (bkpdl) intr.v. back·ped·aled or back·ped·alled, back·ped·al·ing or back·ped·al·ling, back·ped·als 1. To move the pedals of a bicycle or similar vehicle backward, especially to apply a brake. 2. To move backward by taking short quick steps, as in boxing or football. 3. To retreat or withdraw from a position or attitude: The senator later backpedaled on the issue. You were trying to say I was retreating from an issue, not disseminate backwards. You just look silly! I admitted I thought it was a RW rag, I made an early assumption w/o checking and it was incorrect, so what? So I'm not even BACK PEDDLING , I'm stating the case that I agree I thought it was a RW rag. You guys are so sick of getting your ass handed to you with GDP data, Market data and all data that you look for spelling errors and other ridiculous errors like this and play on it. Yours was not an error of spelling, as tho you fat-fingered a key by hitting the adjacent one instead/too, it was an error of syntax, an error of ignorance rather than mechanical mistake. I have never heard in English I study the use of back disseminating , it's actually just funny. Not as funny as watching your squirm tho, thx. Quote It and your rabid defense of it goes to show your inability to properly vet sources... And that from a guy that jumps all over people for their sources is hypocritical and frankly funny as hell. I've posted a bad source/ref and withdrew it. See, the pathetic ignorance comes in when a person posts a bad ref, bad data and sticks with it rather than saying, 'Oh yea, bad data, let's find new and good data.' Show where I've stuck with biased or bad data. I don't care if someone posts bad data - as long as it is objectively gad and tehy agree it is, but when they want me to regard FOX, Heritage Foundation and other rags as reliable then that is the worst. Raw data that is correct is great, we can draw our own conclusions and args, but when Heritage gets it they flip a spin and want us to buy their skewed positions. Kinda like when Gawain wanted me to eat the shit sandwich that Clinton's great fiscal success was only in 1997 when congress leveraged him into tax cuts, ecp capital gains. Clinton had great success years earlier and Gawain wanted me to drink teh (error for Ron) koolaid that somehow this tax cut had a retroactive efffect. Quote You did deny it. I denied I thought the Onion was a RW rag? Show it. Here's post #1: Being the Onion I can't tell for sure. Is it satire meant to be total sarcatism, but with a flair of real intent? I'm sure the Onion would say it's pure sarcasm, but they really mean it. That is a strong inferrence that I think it's a RW rag. Post #4: I think it is real and legit, but hidden behind the guise of satire. I mean after all, it is teh Onion, the rag of the RW homophobic purveyors of the proposed homophoc 28th Amendment. Of course you a nd yours support the proposed 28th, yet claim this is pure satire. SNL could pull this off as pure humor, when teh Onion does it, it has a solid foundation of it being meant. Ron, you just look silly trying to sell this shit-sandwich to us that I thought it was anything besides a RW rag. That was my errant assumption, but admitted as I posted it with no subsequent denials, yet you claim I'm denying it. It's becoming sad to watch you post things that aren't true, sad to watch you spell nanny and then make errors of syntax that don't qualify for typos, but errors of ignorance in usage. It's realy sad, Ron. Quote And you need to show where I stated those other claims from you.... You can't. Which other claims? State them. Quote Like normal, when you are down, you just make things up or start throwing insults. I'm not inulting you. You insulted me and then apologized, then proceded to call me stupid on 2 occassions. Drop the notion I denied I thought it was other than a RW rag as I posted and drop the spell nannying, at this piont it all becomes simple hypocrisy on your part after you made the ultimate syntax offense. Let's talk issues...... oh wait, that's the point of your continual guarantees that I denied I thought it was a RW rag and your spell nannying; you want to remove attention from your party's messes over teh years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #117 November 25, 2009 QuoteNope, but the rate of mine to yours is nothing. Actually I haven't seen a simple mechanical spelling error of yours, just gross errors of usage and syntax; far worse. QuoteYou have been the crazy old man on the corner for years now. That makes neo-cons look silly as they try to distant people from teh (for your Ron) ugly truths of the RW. I see you acknowledged this: You've just been relegated to boring entertainment, even by your own who aren't so depserate they become anal-retentive spelling nannies. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #118 November 25, 2009 You two are polluting our screens. For fuck's sake, take it to PMs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #119 November 25, 2009 QuoteYou two are polluting our screens. For fuck's sake, take it to PMs. I agree, as with Belgian, I submitted we do that, he has blocked PM's saying I was abusive to him. I submitted we quit that, I see he can't help himself and just posted some garbage again. Tell them, not me. - You fucked up, just own it, it's easier that way. - Game, set, match. Admitting your wrong, which quite obviously you are, takes a responsibility attitude. Running as you are is typical neo-conservatism. You know Obama was elcted for reasons other than race and if you don't, just read my post in the thread you ran from: 2M blacks were called out due to Obama running, that isn't the difference. You'll still carry your prejudice that Obama was eleccted due to race and then call me an idiot for being prejudiced. I've fully dispelled the notion that Obama was elected by all the blacks coming out of the woodwork. _________________ Those are the 2 PM's I sent and then he blocked. HE wants the public show, not me. I recently proposed we take this shit to PM's or let it go, he posted again and now Rons' dragging a dead issue around. I agree, TELL THEM. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #120 November 25, 2009 QuoteTELL THEM What is this, the 3rd grade? I'm asking all of you. Give us a fucking break already. Your balls won't fall off if you push away from a thread. Be the bigger adult. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #121 November 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteTELL THEM What is this, the 3rd grade? I'm asking all of you. Give us a fucking break already. Your balls won't fall off if you push away from a thread. Be the bigger adult. I tried to propose we mutually walk away. If I'm the only one walking, I'm getting slammed. You want me to just take it on the chin and refuse to defend myself, I propose the adverse parties just mutually walk away and stay away, that's reasonable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #122 November 25, 2009 You've basically ignored the essence of what I just said, which is: be the bigger adult. If it so threatens your manhood to be the first to push away, just say, "I still think you're full of shit; I stand by my posts, and I'm just not going to argue about it any more." Both you and Ron either don't know or don't care just how much the rest of us scroll right past so many of each of your posts to get to the readable stuff. It's a pity, because each of you are (otherwise) interesting, articulate people. Whatever. I stand by my posts, and I'm not going to argue about it any more. You wanna get the last word in on this, knock yourself out. Goes for you, too, Ron. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #123 November 25, 2009 QuoteYou've basically ignored the essence of what I just said, which is: be the bigger adult. If it so threatens your manhood to be the first to push away, just say, "I still think you're full of shit; I stand by my posts, and I'm just not going to argue about it any more." Both you and Ron either don't know or don't care just how much the rest of us scroll right past so many of each of your posts to get to the readable stuff. It's a pity, because each of you are (otherwise) interesting, articulate people. Whatever. I stand by my posts, and I'm not going to argue about it any more. You wanna get the last word in on this, knock yourself out. Goes for you, too, Ron. What you're proposing is that I take it on the chin, turn and walk.....repeat an unlimited # of times. There's a dignified way to handle all of this, people who can't play well together just agree not to directly or indirectly acknowledge each other. Taht fair and equitable. As a lwyer you wouldn't let an adverse party stick it up your ass and just shrug, yet you expecct me to. That's called acquiescing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #124 November 25, 2009 Quote Actually I haven't seen a simple mechanical spelling error of yours, just gross errors of usage and syntax; far worse. WAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH Quote That makes neo-cons look silly as they try to distant people from teh [SIC] (for your Ron) ugly truths of the RW. At least I can spell THE Quote I see you acknowledged this All I have acknowledged is that you have become irrelevant a LONE time ago... Like the insane man on the corner yelling and insulting people that disagree with his crazy rants."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #125 November 25, 2009 QuoteRons' dragging a dead issue around You are the one crying about how I correctly quote material... Not me. You are the one that always starts the little BS... Not me. I don't have PM's blocked from you. Don't blame ME for YOUR errors. QuoteI've fully dispelled the notion that Obama was elected by all the blacks coming out of the woodwork. Even though this is the first I have been involved with this... If you think it didn't play a part you are clearly blind."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
