DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
He was the most conservative candidate with any viability.
Obama is still blaming Bush for everything.
- Thread starter TuTu Monroe
- Start date
This is sad but true.....and indicative of the way our elections have been for a long while. I'd sure like the opportunity to vote for a guy I can believe in instead of one whom I consider the lesser of two evils.
Oh, and I have to add this: I didn't vote for Bush in '04......did in '00....and I didn't vote for McCain in '08, I voted for Cindy M.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
At least in 08 I could vote for a true conservative. I voted or Alan Keyes in the GOP primary.
Yep, couldn't vote in the GOP primary since I am a demcorat. By the time it gets to the general they've got it whittled down to the two with the most money...at least that is the way it seems most of the time.
TuTu Monroe
A Realist
Yes, we defended him for the vicious and crude treatment he got from the left.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
I don't suppose it could have anything to do with the fact that they don't understand it.
Even you were up until yesterday spewing lies about it. My guess is you still have misconceptions that need to be corrected, apart from the one you already admitted you were wrong about (the public option preventing insurance companies from selling anyone any private insurance policies ever again).
That is a misstatement and disingenuous spindiotcy. I had stated that they couldn't sell them except on the exchange. Until I saw page 121 that spoke of non-exchanged services. Check the mote in your own eye before you attempt to tell me there is a splinter in mine.
Of course, you are unable to interpret any form of sarcasm (like the post in this thread), so I think your disingenuity comes from your obsessive nature to try to pretend everybody on the other side is doing what you do.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Maybe its time that you stopped siding with the 'rats. *shrug*
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
It was always my assertion that companies on the exchange could offer new policies.
You become disingenuous when you start taking it out of context, you spoke of off-exchange companies and my original assertion would be correct if the portion I had missed were not there, that companies that were not on the exchange would not be able to offer new policies.
I simply was mistaken in my belief that only companies on the exchange could offer new policies.
I admit to being wrong, and have three or four times now, but you are being directly disingenuous if you pretend that I was saying that nobody at all could offer new policies, in fact you are willfully lying about my position.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
I put the quote right there. It links back if anyone wants to read the "context."
The larger point was that you were duped into believing nonsense about it. My guess is there is still some nonsense you believe about it. Even after I quoted the section to you about a half dozen times, you still had a big fat condom over your head. It wasn't until you went back to read it yourself that you quoted the section for ME as though I'd never seen it.
People are too fucking stupid. You and the other loons are susceptible to the right wing noise machine. You believe the lies even when the facts (read: the section of the bill proving you wrong) is quoted to your face. This isn't a problem with the legislation, it's a problem of stupidity/gullibility.
The context was your statement about off-exchange companies that the quote answered. Again, I was incorrect that companies off the exchange could not offer new policies. But it was never asserted by me that NO COMPANIES AT ALL could offer new policies, that is a direct lie about my position. Or do you need to re-read post after post where I asserted (incorrectly) that only exchange companies could offer new policies?
This kind of BS from the person "disappointed" that I wasn't a "straight-shooter"...
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
.. which you said wouldn't exist after the bill was instated because you are a gullible tool.
Because I overlooked that page when I originally read the bill. You are deliberately being obtuse and not "straight-shooting"..
This kind of BS from the person "disappointed" that I wasn't a "straight-shooter"...
What a fricking hypocrite you are ib1.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Because I overlooked that page when I originally read the bill. You are deliberately being obtuse and not "straight-shooting"..
This kind of BS from the person "disappointed" that I wasn't a "straight-shooter"...
What a fricking hypocrite you are ib1.
You couldn't have overlooked it because I quoted it half a dozen times. You read it, and ignored it. Maybe it wasn't intentional, but it's what you did. That is, unless you didn't read any of the thread and jumped in like three posts later and started arguing from scratch.
[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=494824&postcount=311"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - Emergency Rooms as Healthcare[/ame]
Hard to imagine.
The large point is you were duped. You're a tool. You probably still are. If we had any reason to continue arguing about the now defunct public option, we'd probably uncover more.
I overlooked it, and didn't read all the posts. Actually it was when I read that you had posted that portion several times that I went back and read your post and then read the portion of the bill again. The reality was I had made a mistake and was willing to admit it.
And further reality notes that you were lying when you asserted here and tried to take out of context quotes to further assert that I had argued something I did not. And that you are a hypocrite in your expressed "disappointment" in my failure to be a "straight shooter". Or should I "quote" those messages where you were "disappointed" and the several times I mentioned that new policies would be sold from the exchange?
Either follow your own advice or quit your whining when you think another is doing what you do.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Pretty hard to take a declarative statement like that wildly out of context. You worded it the way you did to get a rise out of myself and bleme, who gave up on you immediately.
"pretty hard"? Rubbish.
Here is the full quote:
I was wrong, but I never said that no companies could offer new policies, that is your lie. You even had to delete portions of my "quotes" above in order to make it appear that is what I said.