ObamaCare revisited

[spike]

that's your perception.

No, it clearly was unsubstantiated since you didn't back it up with anything and it was clearly vague since it didn't refer to any specific effects and it was clearly complaining since it was negative.

 

[catocom]

you clearly don't seem to have a sense of what 'clearly' is.

there's a dangling participle for ya.

 

[spike]

No, I know exactly what clearly means.

Not backed up with facts = unsubstantiated.

Not referring to any specific effects = vague.

Negative comment about the subject = complaining.

What is it you think isn't clear?

 

[catocom]

What is it you think isn't clear?

since you asked...
your reasoning in many cases.

your definitions are close, but the applications are incorrect.

 

[spike]

You're going to have to back that up and show where the applications are incorrect.

 

[catocom]

I don't Have to do anything...
keep guessing

 

[ResearchMonkey]

since you asked...
your reasoning in many cases.

your definitions are close, but the applications are incorrect.

Framing the conversation, a tool for tools.

 

[spike]

I don't Have to do anything...
keep guessing

Right, but if you make a statement without backing it up you're just throwing more unsubstantiated crap out there. If you can't back up your accusation then it's pretty empty.

 

[catocom]

so...is the glass half empty, or half full?

 

[spike]

How does the glass reflect you not backing up your accusations?

 

[catocom]

wow, that's the way to put forth a loaded question.
Bravo on the attempt.

 

[spike]

Whatever cat, you said "your definitions are close, but the applications are incorrect." but now you refuse to elaborate. If you want just say things and not explain them that's weird.

It's like saying "you are wrong" and then not explaining why. Go ahead and talk about levels of fluids in glasses instead.

 

[catocom]

nice summation

weird? yep very very weird

 

[Gonz]

It's idiotic though that these ridiculous sources like CNS would throw in nonsense fear mongering at the end though. Oh noez it symbolizes government takeover!@! No, it doesn't. It symbolizes that you'll be able to sign up for healthcare at multiple locations.

Hey spike, it looks like he asked the question I've been driving at for months & the esteemed Sen Leahy didn't have an answer. In fatc, he specifically showed that he has no idea what authority he does have. I'd suggest Article 1 section 8.

Sen. Leahy: "We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?"

Yes, Senator, that is what we're saying. Fortunately, more & more of us are askign that very question.

Sen. Leahy: "Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that."

Maybe there needs to be more questioning. Oh, there is.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Hey spike, it looks like he asked the question I've been driving at for months & the esteemed Sen Leahy didn't have an answer. In fatc, he specifically showed that he has no idea what authority he does have. I'd suggest Article 1 section 8.



Yes, Senator, that is what we're saying. Fortunately, more & more of us are askign that very question.



Maybe there needs to be more questioning. Oh, there is.

Seems that very question befuddled Pelosi also.

Seems Pelosi doesn't unnerstan' the COTUS either.

 

[Winky]

wow stop and think for a second
how many other Americans would be able to answer
that very question without the least bit of hesitation

at one time there would be no question
now it really seems there people who don’t know the answer

"Are you serious?"
I'd say it's as serious as hell!

Makes you wonder what the near term future holds...

 

[ResearchMonkey]

wow stop and think for a second
how many other Americans would be able to answer
that very question without the least bit of hesitation

at one time there would be no question
now it really seems there people who don’t know the answer

"Are you serious?"
I'd say it's as serious as hell!

Makes you wonder what the near term future holds...

1st Amendment, then the 2nd.

 

[Winky]

The next to go?

 

[Gonz]

To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father’s has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it

A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence

Are you serious?

Day & night

 

[Winky]

Do not go gentle into that good night.