 | |
Re: {OT} What will Bambi say and do at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Toyota Discussions related to Toyota cars and trucks (alt.autos.toyota)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: {OT} What will Bambi say and do at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? -
11-17-2009
, 06:00 PM
|
In article <rqDMm.17402$ET3.17116 (AT) newsfe17 (DOT) iad>, newstrash (AT) frontiernet (DOT) net says... "ByTor" <ByTor (AT) snowdog (DOT) com> wrote in message news:00a27eb8$0$12328$c3e8da3 (AT) news (DOT) astraweb.com... In article <DgDMm.17399$ET3.13680 (AT) newsfe17 (DOT) iad>, newstrash (AT) frontiernet (DOT) net says... "ByTor" <ByTor (AT) snowdog (DOT) com> wrote in message news:00a27ce9$0$12328$c3e8da3 (AT) news (DOT) astraweb.com... In article <gMAMm.17378$ET3.1714 (AT) newsfe17 (DOT) iad>, newstrash (AT) frontiernet (DOT) net says... "ByTor" <ByTor (AT) snowdog (DOT) com> wrote in message news:00bbe4bd$0$32208$c3e8da3 (AT) news (DOT) astraweb.com... In article <vnzMm.17371$ET3.8849 (AT) newsfe17 (DOT) iad>, newstrash (AT) frontiernet (DOT) net says... "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2@lycos,com> wrote in message news:4b02c221$0$23158$ce5e7886 (AT) news-radius (DOT) ptd.net... My wife's bridge club met at our home yesterday. A bunch of white and black, well educated, ladies. Those ladies must be idiots if they were impressed with Palin, who ran for a job which she couldn't even describe correctly. Know what, I tried Joe to give you the benefit of the doubt. Not that my opinion or how I am is in any way persuasive here but you are giving me more & more evidence that you are what I despise in the world of debate & politics, just another very *one* sided individual that finds it so *easy* to be insulting. I think you most definately crossed the line here, at least in my eyes. She could not correctly describe the job of the vice president, which can be found in any high school social studies textbook. Would you vote for someone running for a job they couldn't describe correctly? I was not talking about Palin, I should have been more clear than in pointing that out. Were you referring to the ladies who thought she was wonderful? Yes. Well, those ladies certainly have low standards if they like a candidate who cannot properly describe the job she's applying for. I don't think that was the point he was making but you're still entitled to your opinion, sometimes I just don't like the way you express it. But you seem to like a fight in these debates so I can't stop you, you don't fight with me but you sure try sometimes, it appears, to use me as some kind of vehicle for your anomisity for your opponents here. But again to, your compassion for the issues can make you a good opponent for debates because you sometimes do make a good argument & use supported resources, it's a shame sometimes that you resort, or waste your time, with such useless energy in the cause of the *fight* because you can be very convincing. I dunno Joe, I think making the assumption of calling some ladies idiots is a little below the line, especially when you don't even know them. If I said my wife disagreed with me on an issue that you passionetly agree with would I become an idiot all of a sudden? i use that as an example because obviously these *idiots* as you say were friends of the poster here. |
Disagreeing on an issue is one thing. Being unable to describe the job
you're applying for is something completely different. Maybe those ladies
weren't aware of Palin's defect in this regard.
Let's say a woman applies for a waitress job at your restaurant. You ask her
"Do you understand your responsibilities in this job? Do you have any
questions?" She responds "Yes. I wait for people to come in the front door
and I show them to their table."
You've already told her you wanted a waitress. What do you say to her?
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:00:02 -0500, "JoeSpareBedroom" newstrash (AT) frontiernet (DOT) net> wrote: Let's say a woman applies for a waitress job at your restaurant. You ask her "Do you understand your responsibilities in this job? Do you have any questions?" She responds "Yes. I wait for people to come in the front door and I show them to their table." You've already told her you wanted a waitress. What do you say to her? You are qualified to vote for Bambi..... -- Scott in Florida |
Was the question too convoluted for you, grandpa? I'm sure ByTor won't have
a problem with it. Watch and pretend to learn.
#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 09:05:56 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: Did you spot the most salient point in the article, vis-a-vis "death panels" and why some want the government to pay for end-of-life counseling? The current legislation ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There's the key phrase... would require Medicare to pay for end-of-life counseling sessions, which are and always will be voluntary. |
Meaning what?
1) A previous version contained "death panels"???
2) A future version will contain it???
Other explanation?
#24
| |||
| |||
|
|
If the left had NOT gone after her, the lie would've stood as truth. In the "minds" of some amoeba, it's still "truth". If you'd like to know what actually happened, you can read about it here, from one of the legislators who actually wrote the provision. I agree with you Joe & opposition to her has the right to disagree but GODDAMN they beat this thing down like a DEAD horse........ The "death panel" lie ***HAD*** to be beat down like a dead horse |
Now it's a lie? You can't prove that there was NOT any reference to panels
to determine the fate of certain patients, and yet, it's a "lie"?
You really don't know, do you? I posted a link to the language of patient
review panels that could decide the fate of certain patients. It has since
been removed. Therefore, the phrase "death panel" was not a lie, and yet,
even though the intention of the phrase 'death panel' has succeeded in
bringing awareness to this language, and HAVING IT REMOVED FROM THE BILL,
it's still a lie?
You're a real mass of crossed wiring, you know that?
You rant on about Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, et al, but in fact, you're
absolutely no better than them, and in fact, a lot worse, sincce you
perpetuate things that are no longer necessary.
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
The "death panel" lie ***HAD*** to be beat down like a dead horse. It was the one thing which could be used to frighten those who do not read and believe whatever they hear on TV or from Rush Limbaugh. As you can see here in this newsgroup, the "death panel" lie still lives in the heads of certain organisms. Beat down Joe, seriously? I love the way they go about it, whatever happened to civilty, that's MY BIGGEST issue, drooling spit spewing sarcasm for ratings in the media & brainwashing the public. |
#26
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:59:15 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: If the left had NOT gone after her, the lie would've stood as truth. In the "minds" of some amoeba, it's still "truth". If you'd like to know what actually happened, you can read about it here, from one of the legislators who actually wrote the provision. I agree with you Joe & opposition to her has the right to disagree but GODDAMN they beat this thing down like a DEAD horse........ The "death panel" lie ***HAD*** to be beat down like a dead horse Death panel 'lie'? Now it's a lie? You can't prove that there was NOT any reference to panels to determine the fate of certain patients, and yet, it's a "lie"? |
If Palin latched onto it, it was a lie. It's really that simple. But I'm
open to being proven wrong. When you post the original excerpt to which
Palin and others referred, I'll read it and I will tell you if she was
correct to call it a "death panel".
#27
| |||
| |||
|
|
The "death panel" lie ***HAD*** to be beat down like a dead horse Death panel 'lie'? Now it's a lie? You can't prove that there was NOT any reference to panels to determine the fate of certain patients, and yet, it's a "lie"? If Palin latched onto it, it was a lie. It's really that simple. |
I posted a link to it.
You're full of shit, "If Palin latched onto, it, it was a lie."
You've been had, both by Palin and by the Democrats currently ruling the
roost. Palin brought it to the masses' attention, the masses spoke up, and
it was removed.
Good for her. Too bad you can't live with that.
#28
| |||
| |||
|
|
And if it is, then referring to "Death Panels" should also stop.. Right? The language from a few months ago is gone, right? So references made at that time are also now invalid and should cease, right? I mean, when the reference to "death panel" was made, there was language in their referring to panels to determine the fate of some patients, right? And Palin picked up on that, right? But the language is gone, right? And Palin hasn't said "death panel" for a few months, right? SO WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU STILL DWELLING ON IT, NIMROD?!?!?!?! Actually, there never WAS anything in any version which even remotely fit the "death panel" nonsense. |
You've lost this one.
Bye.
#29
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:48:06 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: The "death panel" lie ***HAD*** to be beat down like a dead horse Death panel 'lie'? Now it's a lie? You can't prove that there was NOT any reference to panels to determine the fate of certain patients, and yet, it's a "lie"? If Palin latched onto it, it was a lie. It's really that simple. Bullshit. It was in one of the original bills floating around Congress. I posted a link to it. You're full of shit, "If Palin latched onto, it, it was a lie." You've been had, both by Palin and by the Democrats currently ruling the roost. Palin brought it to the masses' attention, the masses spoke up, and it was removed. Good for her. Too bad you can't live with that. |
Saying you posted a link to it is pointless, since you cannot produce the
excerpt NOW.
#30
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:48:09 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote: And if it is, then referring to "Death Panels" should also stop.. Right? The language from a few months ago is gone, right? So references made at that time are also now invalid and should cease, right? I mean, when the reference to "death panel" was made, there was language in their referring to panels to determine the fate of some patients, right? And Palin picked up on that, right? But the language is gone, right? And Palin hasn't said "death panel" for a few months, right? SO WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU STILL DWELLING ON IT, NIMROD?!?!?!?! Actually, there never WAS anything in any version which even remotely fit the "death panel" nonsense. Bullshit. Checkmate was called. Give up and move on to the next game. You've lost this one. Bye. |
Nope. It never existed. The lie was crushed within days of its invention by
Betsy McCauley.
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.