APP - FINALLY!

Ice Dancer said:
Ok belme let me use the correct term. He summarized. He did not make commentary, he did not abridge it.

I do agree with him, don't you? If not, you need to show where he was wrong; you are after all making the assertion that he is wrong.

I looked at 6 of his summaries before posting them and they were all on the money. He is actually reading what the bill says and putting into a concise summary...if you are reading the pages he quotes in his summaries certainly you must agree since you have not provided any contradictions. :)

I am perusing the double spaced piece of crap legislation in small pieces. I find having a person to summarize this bill helps. Your assholiness is just that and not in any way productive. I suggest you go read the bill you so fully support so that you can intelligently dissect Fleckman's summaries instead of thinking you can order me to prove your imagined negative.
Click to expand...

Fleckman's words are not "summaries". They are interpretation from his, obviously anti-bill, anti-Obama viewpoint with no attempt made to produce evidence. I don't know who he is and apparently you don't either, why am I supposed to accept his word as you do simply because he reflects your viewpoint?
 
belme1201 said:
Fleckman's words are not "summaries". They are interpretation from his, obviously anti-bill, anti-Obama viewpoint with no attempt made to produce evidence. I don't know who he is and apparently you don't either, why am I supposed to accept his word as you do simply because he reflects your viewpoint?
Click to expand...

Ummm dorkman, the link to the actual bill is on his page. He cites page numbers so that a person who is really interested in knowing what the bill says can read it for themselves and compare his summaries.

You always manage to come off as an ass belme. You want to say someones work is incorrect and yet lack the ability to show how.

I do not need to know Fleckman to take the info he provides and compare it to the bill.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
It's your reference. It's incumbent upon you to defend it and answer USC's question.
Click to expand...

What BS! The guy has the link to the actual bill on his page. He cites page numbers to reference his work.

If someone brings an accusation they need to already have a case. i.e. show an example that the guys summary is wrong. The link to the bill is there. The page numbers are included. It really is VERY simple so that partisan hacks such as yourself can easily find the references...really
 
Ice Dancer said:
Ummm dorkman, the link to the actual bill is on his page. He cites page numbers so that a person who is really interested in knowing what the bill says can read it for themselves and compare his summaries.

You always manage to come off as an ass belme. You want to say someones work is incorrect and yet lack the ability to show how.

I do not need to know Fleckman to take the info he provides and compare it to the bill.
Click to expand...


Re: Fleckman

Page 33-wrong
Page 30 Section 123-wrong
Page 29 lines 4-16-wrong
Page 42-wrong
etc.
etc.
etc.........and so forth.


I have provided my opinion with the same evidence as Fleckman, for proof go to House Bill 3200 provided without abridgment at C-Span.org or the House website.
 
Last edited:
charver said:
To be fair, she's most likely nursing a sore ******* finger after typing all those ******* asterisk *******.

It's a ******* ******* alright.

All to keep that ******* **** Damo sweet.
Click to expand...

Yep, the pious Christian lady will have to say a shedload of Hail Marys to atone for that outburst!!
 
Ice Dancer said:
What BS! The guy has the link to the actual bill on his page. He cites page numbers to reference his work.

If someone brings an accusation they need to already have a case. i.e. show an example that the guys summary is wrong. The link to the bill is there. The page numbers are included. It really is VERY simple so that partisan hacks such as yourself can easily find the references...really
Click to expand...

^exactly^

this is the kind of serious debate on this issue i've been looking for....not surprisingly some libs act like hacks and ignore the citations and simply attack the messenger....

there are direct citations to the assertations folks....if they're false, it should be easy to prove
 
belme1201 said:
Re: Fleckman

Page 33-wrong
Page 30 Section 123-wrong
Page 29 lines 4-16-wrong
Page 42-wrong
etc.
etc.
etc.d........


I have provided my opinion with the same evidence as Fleckman, for proof go to House Bill 3200 provided without abridgment at C-Span.org or the House website.
Click to expand...

not true at all.....fleckman stated reasons, conclusion and a citation....you state conclusions with a citation....why don't you actually explain yoru position instead of acting like an ass
 
Yurt said:
not true at all.....fleckman stated reasons, conclusion and a citation....you state conclusions with a citation....why don't you actually explain yoru position instead of acting like an ass
Click to expand...

He's incapable of presenting a reasoned opinion against Fleckman's summary opinions that's why.
 
belme1201 said:
Re: Fleckman

Page 33-wrong
Page 30 Section 123-wrong
Page 29 lines 4-16-wrong
Page 42-wrong
etc.
etc.
etc.........and so forth.


I have provided my opinion with the same evidence as Fleckman, for proof go to House Bill 3200 provided without abridgment at C-Span.org or the House website.
Click to expand...

No, you did not. Fleckman provided a summary of his opinions based on what he read. He cited the section and page number(s) to support his opinion. As per usual belme you have merely shown your ass.
 
Yurt said:
not true at all.....fleckman stated reasons, conclusion and a citation....you state conclusions with a citation....why don't you actually explain yoru position instead of acting like an ass
Click to expand...

I have stated my position, and I think he is wrong when the bill is presented accurately and in context. I also supplied all the evidence Fleckman did which was line and section numbers only, the rest is opinion without evidence, counselor. Why do you hold me to a different standard? See the full rebuttal posted above by christiefan, there is no need for me to re-post it. Fielding all the misinformation being crapped out there about the bill is a full time occupation, will you join me in correcting it?......unless you feel all criticism is truth although you experienced it regarding "grandfathering" with the Prophet. Distortion is a simple matter when accompanied by out of context, incomplete evidence accompanied by opinion.
 
belme1201 said:
I have stated my position, and I think he is wrong when the bill is presented accurately and in context. I also supplied all the evidence Fleckman did which was line and section numbers only, the rest is opinion without evidence, counselor. Why do you hold me to a different standard? See the full rebuttal posted above by christiefan, there is no need for me to re-post it. Fielding all the misinformation being crapped out there about the bill is a full time occupation, will you join me in correcting it?......unless you feel all criticism is truth although you experienced it regarding "grandfathering" with the Prophet. Distortion is a simple matter when accompanied by out of context, incomplete evidence accompanied by opinion.
Click to expand...

fleckman explain what he thought the bill said and then gave cites

you just said....p. 436 wrong

quite different and if you don't know the difference i am not going to waste my time educating you....as apparently you just want to hang your hat on someone else's rebuttal instead of actually debating points yourself....
 
Yurt said:
fleckman explain what he thought the bill said and then gave cites

you just said....p. 436 wrong

quite different and if you don't know the difference i am not going to waste my time educating you....as apparently you just want to hang your hat on someone else's rebuttal instead of actually debating points yourself....
Click to expand...

"fleckman explain what he THOUGHT the bill said and then gave cites"
I THINK he's wrong. If cites means line and section numbers, correct, anything else incorrect, only opinion. I gave and give the same "cites". As an arbiter of the matter, my opinion is just as valid or invalid as his, and for that matter, yours, thus, as arbiters, we are all disqualified and I accept that, however, there is only one truth..
No interest in quelling the misinformation/disinformation such as "death panels", infanticide, or floating old people on icebergs etc.?
 
Last edited:
belme1201 said:
"fleckman explain what he THOUGHT the bill said and then gave cites"
I THINK he's wrong. If cites means line and section numbers, correct, anything else incorrect, only opinion. I gave and give the same "cites". As an arbiter of the matter, my opinion is just as valid or invalid as his, and for that matter, yours, thus, as arbiters, we are all disqualified and I accept that.
No interest in quelling the misinformation/disinformation such as "death panels", infanticide, or floating old people on icebergs etc.?
Click to expand...
Which doesn't change anything at all, his cites are accurate and his opinion reasoned. You disagree, cool. Can you tell us where and the reason at each point you disagree?
 
belme1201 said:
"fleckman explain what he THOUGHT the bill said and then gave cites"
I THINK he's wrong. If cites means line and section numbers, correct, anything else incorrect, only opinion. I gave and give the same "cites". As an arbiter of the matter, my opinion is just as valid or invalid as his, and for that matter, yours, thus, as arbiters, we are all disqualified and I accept that.
No interest in quelling the misinformation/disinformation such as "death panels", infanticide, or floating old people on icebergs etc.?
Click to expand...

i never said your opinion is less valid....strawman

i said your debate is not the same as you did not give a reasoned opinion and then citing specifically to the section as fleckman did...as i asked before....why don't you explain or reason as to why you think fleckman is wrong instead of saying: wrong.....and then expecting us just to swallow your opinion....

that is not debating, that is not convincing
 
Good Luck said:
Since when does one have to be a medical doctor to read a congressional bill and point out the areas where it gives government too much authority? How many doctors understand legalese to begin with?

If that is the only argument you have against the information presented, it shows how truly unthinking you are. You have NO idea what the bill actually says. You have NO idea to what degree it will result in government involvement in every day medical decisions. Yet you somehow have the knowledge to criticize those who oppose it. What are your credentials? Clairvoyance? Or are you a precog?
Click to expand...

A random person posting on the internet has NO credibility.
 
Damocles said:
Which doesn't change anything at all, his cites are accurate and his opinion reasoned. You disagree, cool. Can you tell us where and the reason at each point you disagree?
Click to expand...




"Page 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the govt. willaudit books of ALL EMPLOYERS
that self insure."

How is it different if I use the same "cites" he uses and merely add 'DOES NOT' before MANDATES? I have given no less information than he has. If you're asking for my reason for thinking he is wrong, it is that he presrnts opinion as fact. Is he an unbiased source? I'm not, you're not, and I think it's a good possibility he is also not unbiased.
My only point since coming aboard this thread is that I suspect out of context opinions masquerading as quotes, and his certainly qualify and were presented in that manner as "abridged". I know nothing about the man to be able to measure the weight of his opinions or his veracity. Am I too lazy to go to find the words in his "cites", or was he too lazy to supply them, and is the third alternative that he wants the reader to accept his conclusions at face value without him supplying the words, in context, about which he is providing an opinion? Certainly rules of evidence have not been reached here.
The rebuttal for his words are elsewhere, and in my OPINION, well done. My opinion regarding his piece is derived from the facts stated above.
 
belme1201 said:
"Page 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the govt. willaudit books of ALL EMPLOYERS
that self insure."

How is it different if I use the same "cites" he uses and merely add 'DOES NOT' before MANDATES? I have given no less information than he has. If you're asking for my reason for thinking he is wrong, it is that he presrnts opinion as fact. Is he an unbiased source? I'm not, you're not, and I think it's a good possibility he is also not unbiased.
My only point since coming aboard this thread is that I suspect out of context opinions masquerading as quotes, and his certainly qualify and were presented in that manner as "abridged". I know nothing about the man to be able to measure the weight of his opinions or his veracity. Am I too lazy to go to find the words in his "cites", or was he too lazy to supply them, and is the third alternative that he wants the reader to accept his conclusions at face value without him supplying the words, in context, about which he is providing an opinion? Certainly rules of evidence have not been reached here.
The rebuttal for his words are elsewhere, and in my OPINION, well done. My opinion regarding his piece is derived from the facts stated above.
Click to expand...
I see, so your objection is he "presents opinion as fact" and your answer is to refuse to point out where the opinion is wrong and say, "He does it too!"

When my 5 year old tells me that her sister was doing it too, I inform her of one fact. "She was doing it too!" is a confession as much as it is attempting to spread blame. Will you be better than her source? Will you recognize a conversation starter and use it as such? Will you do yourself what you insist others should do? Or will you repeat again, "They are doing it too."

The opinions are listed, they are not quotes as none are shown as quotes, they are cited, and they are reasoned. They may be concise but that doesn't change that he took the time to read, write a short concise opinion, and then to cite his work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top