DaVinci 0 #51 September 21, 2011 QuoteLeaving part of your own quote out is pretty pathetic. Ignoring the context of the post is even more pathetic. QuoteLooks like as usual, you are only against laws you don't agree with, but are fine with being dictated by the government in other areas. Oh look, you made up stuff again... Kinda like where you claim I said to "Fuck Them" when I didn't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #52 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteBeen taking "rubber/glue" debate lessons from mnealtx? No, just watching you dodge and avoid. kinda like you were taking tap lessons from Fred Astair. Ha ha. YOU snip YOUR own quote and somehow I'm to blame. PATHETIC.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #53 September 21, 2011 QuoteHa ha. YOU snip YOUR own quote and somehow I'm to blame. PATHETIC. Oh look, you can't stick to the topic and instead start the insults.... That is your issue. For a guy that is supposed to be smart, you sure debate like you are not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #54 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteThere was never any disagreement. You simply "thought" you knew what I was saying. It was your deluded fantasy. Now that you've come back down to Earth, we could very easily have social workers or even doctors make the determination. As I said previously, there are many people who have become experts at working the system and living their entire lives that way. That process is already in place, people do get turned down for welfare. The system isn't perfect and I am sure savings can be had. Do you have any idea how many people are "experts at working the system"? (and are we now talking about Health Care or Welfare?) And if they are able to work, then they don't get welfare. By the same line of thinking if they are too irresonsible to provide for their own health insurance, then why should I have to pay for it? Yes, I do know people who work the system. Not the kind of person I want for a friend but I know of one who has a PhD and has hardly ever worked a day in his life. He stayed in school for 15 years as a professional student while getting welfare, disability etc. while selling stuff through another person on Ebay. I can assure you, from talking to him, there are many other just like him. In fact according to him, many of his friends do the same thing. Then when they get sick, the hospital gets stuck with the tab which they pass along in higher healthcare costs to me via my insurance company. How many Skydivers have you met who don't have proper health insurance to cover them if they get injured, but they have several thousand jumps and the latest gear? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #55 September 21, 2011 QuoteAnd if they are able to work, then they don't get welfare. By the same line of thinking if they are too irresonsible to provide for their own health insurance, then why should I have to pay for it? You already said that it would be relatively simple to have social workers or doctors to make that determination. Two posts later and you are no longer happy with that setup? QuoteYes, I do know people who work the system. Not the kind of person I want for a friend but I know of one who has a PhD and has hardly ever worked a day in his life. He stayed in school for 15 years as a professional student while getting welfare, disability etc. while selling stuff through another person on Ebay. I can assure you, from talking to him, there are many other just like him. In fact according to him, many of his friends do the same thing. Then when they get sick, the hospital gets stuck with the tab which they pass along in higher healthcare costs to me via my insurance company. So, why didn't you turn him in? And I asked you how many people were experts at working the system? SO far you have provided one anecdote and no data. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #56 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFor once it would be nice if you tried to have a real discussion instead of your normal posts. BTW, Running a red light has killed innocents Doing 100 in a school zone has killed innocents Drunk Driving has killed innocents Air races over congested areas has killed innocents. See you ignore the post and attack one small part. It is pathetic and called a strawman, BTW. Leaving part of your own quote out is pretty pathetic. However, running a red light has not killed anybody. Hitting them with the car is what killed them. Dangerous driving is already illegal. Doing 100 hasn't killed anybody, hitting them with the car kills them. Dangerous driving is already illegal. Drunk driving doesn't kill. Hitting them is what kills them. Dangerous driving, murder and manslaughter are already illegal The list goes on. Looks like as usual, you are only against laws you don't agree with, but are fine with being dictated by the government in other areas. So you would agree that guns aren't the problem, it's what some people do with them that's the issue? That seems like a strawman. Can't speak for him, but I see no reason sane, law abiding people should be deprived of firearms. Agree with you that, for example, mentally ill people shouldn't have guns and that right now we do a piss-poor job of keeping guns out of their hands. Then I will ask you again. Considering the impact voting has on our society, would you support a law that takes away someone's right to vote if they have been judged mentally ill, without due process? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #57 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFor once it would be nice if you tried to have a real discussion instead of your normal posts. BTW, Running a red light has killed innocents Doing 100 in a school zone has killed innocents Drunk Driving has killed innocents Air races over congested areas has killed innocents. See you ignore the post and attack one small part. It is pathetic and called a strawman, BTW. Leaving part of your own quote out is pretty pathetic. However, running a red light has not killed anybody. Hitting them with the car is what killed them. Dangerous driving is already illegal. Doing 100 hasn't killed anybody, hitting them with the car kills them. Dangerous driving is already illegal. Drunk driving doesn't kill. Hitting them is what kills them. Dangerous driving, murder and manslaughter are already illegal The list goes on. Looks like as usual, you are only against laws you don't agree with, but are fine with being dictated by the government in other areas. So you would agree that guns aren't the problem, it's what some people do with them that's the issue? That seems like a strawman. Can't speak for him, but I see no reason sane, law abiding people should be deprived of firearms. Agree with you that, for example, mentally ill people shouldn't have guns and that right now we do a piss-poor job of keeping guns out of their hands. Then I will ask you again. Considering the impact voting has on our society, would you support a law that takes away someone's right to vote if they have been judged mentally ill, without due process? Who said anything about "without due process"? Not me,... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #58 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteAnd if they are able to work, then they don't get welfare. By the same line of thinking if they are too irresonsible to provide for their own health insurance, then why should I have to pay for it? You already said that it would be relatively simple to have social workers or doctors to make that determination. Two posts later and you are no longer happy with that setup? QuoteYes, I do know people who work the system. Not the kind of person I want for a friend but I know of one who has a PhD and has hardly ever worked a day in his life. He stayed in school for 15 years as a professional student while getting welfare, disability etc. while selling stuff through another person on Ebay. I can assure you, from talking to him, there are many other just like him. In fact according to him, many of his friends do the same thing. Then when they get sick, the hospital gets stuck with the tab which they pass along in higher healthcare costs to me via my insurance company. So, why didn't you turn him in? And I asked you how many people were experts at working the system? SO far you have provided one anecdote and no data. I already stated it was my opinion. But it's my opinion based on my observations. Quit being such an apologist. Nobody wants to force people who are truly unable to work to do so, but work doesn't always mean physical labor. It means they sould do something to accept responsibility for themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #59 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFor once it would be nice if you tried to have a real discussion instead of your normal posts. BTW, Running a red light has killed innocents Doing 100 in a school zone has killed innocents Drunk Driving has killed innocents Air races over congested areas has killed innocents. See you ignore the post and attack one small part. It is pathetic and called a strawman, BTW. Leaving part of your own quote out is pretty pathetic. However, running a red light has not killed anybody. Hitting them with the car is what killed them. Dangerous driving is already illegal. Doing 100 hasn't killed anybody, hitting them with the car kills them. Dangerous driving is already illegal. Drunk driving doesn't kill. Hitting them is what kills them. Dangerous driving, murder and manslaughter are already illegal The list goes on. Looks like as usual, you are only against laws you don't agree with, but are fine with being dictated by the government in other areas. So you would agree that guns aren't the problem, it's what some people do with them that's the issue? That seems like a strawman. Can't speak for him, but I see no reason sane, law abiding people should be deprived of firearms. Agree with you that, for example, mentally ill people shouldn't have guns and that right now we do a piss-poor job of keeping guns out of their hands. Then I will ask you again. Considering the impact voting has on our society, would you support a law that takes away someone's right to vote if they have been judged mentally ill, without due process? Who said anything about "without due process"? Not me, So to be consistent, you would also have to agree that the right to own a gun should not e taken away without due process. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #60 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFor once it would be nice if you tried to have a real discussion instead of your normal posts. BTW, Running a red light has killed innocents Doing 100 in a school zone has killed innocents Drunk Driving has killed innocents Air races over congested areas has killed innocents. See you ignore the post and attack one small part. It is pathetic and called a strawman, BTW. Leaving part of your own quote out is pretty pathetic. However, running a red light has not killed anybody. Hitting them with the car is what killed them. Dangerous driving is already illegal. Doing 100 hasn't killed anybody, hitting them with the car kills them. Dangerous driving is already illegal. Drunk driving doesn't kill. Hitting them is what kills them. Dangerous driving, murder and manslaughter are already illegal The list goes on. Looks like as usual, you are only against laws you don't agree with, but are fine with being dictated by the government in other areas. So you would agree that guns aren't the problem, it's what some people do with them that's the issue? That seems like a strawman. Can't speak for him, but I see no reason sane, law abiding people should be deprived of firearms. Agree with you that, for example, mentally ill people shouldn't have guns and that right now we do a piss-poor job of keeping guns out of their hands. Then I will ask you again. Considering the impact voting has on our society, would you support a law that takes away someone's right to vote if they have been judged mentally ill, without due process? Who said anything about "without due process"? Not me, So to be consistent, you would also have to agree that the right to own a gun should not e taken away without due process. Do you like arguing with yourself? Who said anything about taking away guns? I don't think loonies should have them in the first place.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #61 September 21, 2011 QuoteDo you like arguing with yourself? Who said anything about taking away guns? I don't think loonies should have them in the first place. True, you want their to be a process in place BEFORE you own a gun. But, would you be OK with that SAME process to be put into place BEFORE you are allowed to vote? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #62 September 21, 2011 QuoteTrue, you want their to be a process in place BEFORE you own a gun. But, would you be OK with that SAME process to be put into place BEFORE you are allowed to vote? lol, I am sure he will be as soon as you are OK with people having to register before owning a gun, just like you ahve to befoer you are allowed to vote. Different rights, different processes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #63 September 21, 2011 Quotelol, I am sure he will be as soon as you are OK with people having to register before owning a gun, just like you ahve to befoer you are allowed to vote. Different rights, different processes. It was a question for someone else... If you are going to jump in, why don't you ANSWER it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #64 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFor once it would be nice if you tried to have a real discussion instead of your normal posts. BTW, Running a red light has killed innocents Doing 100 in a school zone has killed innocents Drunk Driving has killed innocents Air races over congested areas has killed innocents. See you ignore the post and attack one small part. It is pathetic and called a strawman, BTW. Leaving part of your own quote out is pretty pathetic. However, running a red light has not killed anybody. Hitting them with the car is what killed them. Dangerous driving is already illegal. Doing 100 hasn't killed anybody, hitting them with the car kills them. Dangerous driving is already illegal. Drunk driving doesn't kill. Hitting them is what kills them. Dangerous driving, murder and manslaughter are already illegal The list goes on. Looks like as usual, you are only against laws you don't agree with, but are fine with being dictated by the government in other areas. So you would agree that guns aren't the problem, it's what some people do with them that's the issue? That seems like a strawman. Can't speak for him, but I see no reason sane, law abiding people should be deprived of firearms. Agree with you that, for example, mentally ill people shouldn't have guns and that right now we do a piss-poor job of keeping guns out of their hands. Then I will ask you again. Considering the impact voting has on our society, would you support a law that takes away someone's right to vote if they have been judged mentally ill, without due process? Who said anything about "without due process"? Not me, So to be consistent, you would also have to agree that the right to own a gun should not e taken away without due process. Do you like arguing with yourself? Who said anything about taking away guns? I don't think loonies should have them in the first place. We are discussing the process. Try and keep up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #65 September 21, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFor once it would be nice if you tried to have a real discussion instead of your normal posts. BTW, Running a red light has killed innocents Doing 100 in a school zone has killed innocents Drunk Driving has killed innocents Air races over congested areas has killed innocents. See you ignore the post and attack one small part. It is pathetic and called a strawman, BTW. Leaving part of your own quote out is pretty pathetic. However, running a red light has not killed anybody. Hitting them with the car is what killed them. Dangerous driving is already illegal. Doing 100 hasn't killed anybody, hitting them with the car kills them. Dangerous driving is already illegal. Drunk driving doesn't kill. Hitting them is what kills them. Dangerous driving, murder and manslaughter are already illegal The list goes on. Looks like as usual, you are only against laws you don't agree with, but are fine with being dictated by the government in other areas. So you would agree that guns aren't the problem, it's what some people do with them that's the issue? That seems like a strawman. Can't speak for him, but I see no reason sane, law abiding people should be deprived of firearms. Agree with you that, for example, mentally ill people shouldn't have guns and that right now we do a piss-poor job of keeping guns out of their hands. Then I will ask you again. Considering the impact voting has on our society, would you support a law that takes away someone's right to vote if they have been judged mentally ill, without due process? Who said anything about "without due process"? Not me, So to be consistent, you would also have to agree that the right to own a gun should not e taken away without due process. Do you like arguing with yourself? Who said anything about taking away guns? I don't think loonies should have them in the first place. We are discussing the process. Try and keep up. Loonies and felons have a right to own guns? The law as interpreted by SCOTUS would not seem to support this). Something that you don't have can't be taken away.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DougH 270 #66 September 22, 2011 Why does every thread need to be diluted and dumbed down with this asshole bullshit, from posters on all sides! You guys can't stay on topic. You can't get your point across without being smug deragatory pricks. You can't go more than a day without breaking in personal attacks. You can't discuss or debate a persons point with a counter argument that has substance. Instead we resort to writing peoples whole arguments off as "straw man" or "stupid" or "non sequitur". Here is a PA for all of you... stop being a bunch of assholes!Personally I am all about Rahm's little plan. The city workers are getting benefits that are paid for by the citizens. Many of those citizens couldn't even dream of the health care package that the city workers are getting, at a great expense, off of the backs of the public. They owe it to the public to keep costs down, and for their benefits to be sustainable. If city worker Fatty McD, who can recite the McDonalds dollar menu by heart, and smokes 1.5 packs a day doesn't like it than they can get off the city health insurance, and they can pay out of their own pocket for a plan of their choosing. "The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall" =P Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #67 September 22, 2011 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- lol, I am sure he will be as soon as you are OK with people having to register before owning a gun, just like you ahve to befoer you are allowed to vote. Different rights, different processes. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It was a question for someone else... If you are going to jump in, why don't you ANSWER it? Read the second line, it has your answer. Maybe put your anger aside and focus on reading comprehension for a little bit? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #68 September 26, 2011 QuoteMaybe put your anger aside and focus on reading comprehension for a little bit? Aw, such a cute little personal attack. Maybe you could focus on the discussion instead of making them? Quote Read the second line, it has your answer. No, it actually does not. Claiming it does does not make it true. Try again without the PA's if you are able. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #69 September 26, 2011 Great, so you are OK with the government doing a background check and psychological evealuation of anyone withing to vote? Actually is looks as if they will soon have the means to do just that. Quote Obamacare HHS rule would give government everybody’s health records By:Rep. Tim Huelskamp | 09/23/11 3:29 PM OpEd Contributor. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has proposed that medical records of all Americans be turned over to the federal government by private health insurers. It’s been said a thousand times: Congress had to pass President Obama’s health care law in order to find out what’s in it. But, despite the repetitiveness, the level of shock from each new discovery never seems to recede. This time, America is learning about the federal government’s plan to collect and aggregate confidential patient records for every one of us. In a proposed rule from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal government is demanding insurance companies submit detailed health care information about their patients. (See Proposed Rule: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Standards Related to Reinsurance, Risk Corridors and Risk Adjustment, Volume 76, page 41930. Proposed rule docket ID is HHS-OS-2011-0022 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-15/pdf/2011-17609.pdf) The HHS has proposed the federal government pursue one of three paths to obtain this sensitive information: A “centralized approach” wherein insurers’ data go directly to Washington; an “intermediate state-level approach” in which insurers give the information to the 50 states; or a “distributed approach” in which health insurance companies crunch the numbers according to federal bureaucrat edict. It’s par for the course with the federal government, but abstract terms are used to distract from the real objectives of this idea: no matter which “option” is chosen, government bureaucrats would have access to the health records of every American - including you. There are major problems with any one of these three “options.” First is the obvious breach of patient confidentiality. The federal government does not exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to managing private information about its citizens. Why should we trust that the federal government would somehow keep all patient records confidential? In one case, a government employee’s laptop containing information about 26.5 million veterans and their spouses was stolen from the employee’s home. There's also the HHS contractor who lost a laptop containing medical information about nearly 50,000 Medicare beneficiaries. And, we cannot forget when the USDA's computer system was compromised and information and photos of 26,000 employees, contractors, and retirees potentially accessed. The second concern is the government compulsion to seize details about private business practices. Certainly many health insurance companies defended and advocated for the president’s health care law, but they likely did not know this was part of the bargain. They are being asked to provide proprietary information to governments for purposes that will undermine their competitiveness. Obama and Sebelius made such a big deal about Americans being able to keep the coverage they have under ObamaCare; with these provisions, such private insurance may cease to exist if insurers are required to divulge their business models. Certainly businesses have lost confidential data like the federal government has, but the power of the market can punish the private sector. A victim can fire a health insurance company; he cannot fire a bureaucrat. What happens to the federal government if it loses a laptop full of patient data or business information? What recourse do individual citizens have against an inept bureaucrat who leaves the computer unlocked? Imagine a Wikileaks-sized disclosure of every Americans’ health histories. The results could be devastating - embarrassing - even Orwellian. With its extensive rule-making decrees, ObamaCare has been an exercise in creating authority out of thin air at the expense of individuals’ rights, freedoms, and liberties. The ability of the federal government to spy on, review, and approve individuals’ private patient-doctor interactions is an excessive power-grab. Like other discoveries that have occurred since the law’s passage, this one leaves us scratching our heads as to the necessity not just of this provision, but the entire law. The HHS attempts to justify its proposal on the grounds that it has to be able to compare performance. No matter what the explanation is, however, this type of data collection is an egregious violation of patient-doctor confidentiality and business privacy. It is like J. Edgar Hoover in a lab coat. And, no matter what assurances Obama, Sebelius and their unelected and unaccountable HHS bureaucrats make about protections and safeguards of data, too many people already know what can result when their confidential information gets into the wrong hands, either intentionally or unintentionally. Republican Tim Huelskamp represents the first congressional district of Kansas. Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/09/obamare-hhs-rule-would-give-government-everybody-s-health-records#ixzz1Z3s2t0Dr Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
