Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

5 things conservatives lie about shamelessly


Recommended Posts

DS...so I guess liberals don't lie in your world ???  :lol:  :lol:

 

BTW Since truth always trumps theory...if you are open to receiving the truth I have a wonderful reading list for you starting with 

 

GOD and the Astronomers...a real eye opener...

 

 

Eagle Eye they lie as much, but in a dinar site where the vast majority is left to far left leaning, somebody has to print the truth.

 

The truth based on the Bible is not truth, its more like legend and folk stories written by men. The simple fact that the story of the world flood was written hundred of years before the bible , and that the 10 commandments and laws of Moses are all based on the Code of Hammurabi are 2 basic examples that it can not be taken as totally factual.

 

 

Now I will believe whoever can can give a valid, non mythological explaination of the universe. the best example of this was in the Fix TV program Cosmos where in the episode, entitled " A Sky Full of Ghosts," Neil deGrasse Tyson uses the example of the Crab Nebula, which is about 6,500 light years away from Earth, to debunk this creationist belief. As he explains, we can see the light of celestial beings much, much further away than the Crab Nebula, which proves that our universe is much older than a few thousand years.

 

 

"If the universe were only 6,500 years old, how could we see the light from anything more distant than the Crab Nebula?" Tyson asks during the episode. "We couldn’t. There wouldn’t have been enough time for the light to get to Earth from anywhere farther away than 6,500 light years in any direction. That’s just enough time for light to travel a tiny portion of our Milky Way galaxy."

 

 

 

Sorry EagleEye, facts do debunk plagarized ancient folk stories

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

5 things conservatives lie about shamelessly The right still somehow insists that climate change isn't real and that the ACA will euthanize old people         Mark Twain once famously said, “A l

Keep up the good work!! Maybe some of the more intelligent people here will see the truth.   The rest will just neg your post. No...LIE is NOT in the name LIBERAL....but CON is sure in the name C

Garbage in - Garbage out!   Keep spouting the lies - if you repeat them often enough and long enough small minds will believe them!  

 

Dinar Stud:

 

I hope you'll receive my request in the manner in which I send it -- I'd really like your sources that backup your claims: 

 

"A small sampling of the many, many lies spouted by gun industry advocates: That guns prevent murder, when in fact more guns correlates strongly with more murders. That gun control doesn’t workThat gun control is unpopular.  That any move to make gun ownership safer is a move to take away your guns. That a gun in the home makes you safer when it actually puts your family at more risk. That guns protect against domestic violence, when the truth is that owning a gun makes abuse worse, not better. Even the standard line “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is a distracting bit of dishonesty, since most gun deaths aren’t murders but suicides."

 

If any similar post was made on this site or any other by a Conservative, Leftists would be screaming for proof.  I'm not screaming (and I'm not a Leftist), but I sincerely would like your basis for making these allegations. 

 

Me thinks, however, that as usually occurs, Liberals' main defense against anything that might be considered as a Conservative cause is simply to blast its substance without ANY factual information or data, merely believing that stupid Americans will believe what Liberals say simply because they scream often and loudly.  Sadly in this case, crying "Wolf" may water down the desired effect if any/all of these "facts" are true.

 

I can only speak factually to one:  twice in my life if I had not had a firearm with me at a specific point, I would have been at least robbed in my home once and in my car once, and may have been injured.  There are many stories about guns saving peoples' lives.  And I'm certain our amazing Media don't report those stories as often and as diligently as they report the unfortunate killings that occur.

 

 

Read through the thread......the rightists have been basting misinformation.....the LEFT is the ONLY one who has presented PROOF.

 

Quote

but in a dinar site where the vast majority is left to far left leaning,

End Quote

You meant  " right to far right leaning"....Right?

 

 

You can stick with just very far right leaning.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

ocdude

 

 I want to thank you for your convoluted and twisted agreement with my actual statements versus your ''re wording'' to justify your Democratic  'Pelosi-isms' and 'Obamanations'. Truth lies within the implementation via regulations of the ACA Law.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

ocdude

 

 I want to thank you for your convoluted and twisted agreement with my actual statements versus your ''re wording'' to justify your Democratic  'Pelosi-isms' and 'Obamanations'.

 

 

Truth lies within the implementation via regulations of the ACA Law.

 

Yes it does....and your EMAIL does not tell the truth. Look at the actual LAW. Look up those pages you posted. Post the ACTUAL WORDING that says no cancer treatment after age 76 from THE LAW, not from the email. You will see that YOU were lied to, and not by me.

Your post is word for word from the debunked email.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/kithil.asp

 

Judge Dread

ppaca.jpg

Claim:   Letter from Judge David Kithil provides accurate line item criticisms of "Obamacare" health care reform legislation. 

content-divider.gifred.gifFALSE content-divider.gif

Examples:   [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] 

I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements. We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program? Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of those two programs. 

I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. 

That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there." 

Other problems I have with this bill include: 

Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. 

Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. 

Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) 

Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. 

Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. 

Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. 

Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. 

Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. 

Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. 

Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick "fix" to make the plan financially sound for the future." 

Honorable David Kithil Marble Falls, Texas.

 

Origins:   A number of similar pieces presenting lists of line item criticisms of a pending health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) began circulating on the Internet in mid-2009, and they continue to circulate widely three years later as arguments to oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare." 

The versions of this item that continue to be spread via e-mail forwards and online postings are wrong in nearly every particular, however:

 

 

  • Although this list is commonly attributed as originating with a letter sent to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana by Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, an Indianapolis anesthesiologist, or as a letter sent to the River Cities Tribune by David Kithil, a former county judge in Marble Falls, Texas, it is actually the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who issued    the list as a series of Tweets and posted it to his blog in July 2009.
  • The bill referenced in this list, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), was never passed by Congress. A completely different bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), became the basis for what is now known as "Obamacare." Many of the entries in the list are therefore irrelevant and outdated, as they address aspects of health care reform legislation that were never enacted by Congress (particularly the "public option" for a government insurance plan).
  • Virtually every statement included in this list is exaggerated, misleading, inaccurate, or outright erroneous, as detailed below: 

     

    The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. 

    This is false. The PPACA, as enacted, doesn't "provide insurance" to anyone — it institutes some regulations on the insurance industry to make medical insurance more broadly available and affordable to Americans, and it requires that Americans enroll in PPACA-qualified medical plans or pay a penalty, but everyone is still responsible for obtaining (and paying for) their own insurance coverage. 

    Moreover, the section of the unpassed HB 3200 bill referenced in the above statement is 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE, which simply states that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." It doesn't explicity grant or authorize government funds for providing illegal immigrants with health care or health insurance, and another section of the bill specifically states that "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." 

     

    The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. 

    This is false. The section of HB 3200 referenced here does nothing more than attempt to provide a framework for simplifying the use of electronic payments for health services, emulating the way that many consumers currently use to make a variety of other payments (e.g., utilities, mortgages, credit card balances). The bill simply calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to set standards for electronic administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice." Nothing in this section grants the government "real-time access to an individual's bank account" or the "authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts." The bill doesn't even require that consumers use an electronic payment system — it simply seeks to make that an option for those who want to use it. 

     

    The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). 

    This statement is misleading, as the section of HB 3200 referenced here is SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES, which addresses "retirees and ... spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees" who are covered by "employment-based [health benefit] plans." It does not specifically provide for subsidizing health insurance for "all union members, union retirees and community organizations"; it sets up a new federal reinsurance plan for any retirees and their spouses who are covered by any employer plan, not just those who are covered under plans run by unions or community groups. The reinsurance would be available to any "group health benefits plan that ... is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations." 

     

    The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) 

    This statement misleadingly tries to make HB 3200 sound ridiculous by deliberately eliding the end of the statement it quotes. What the bill actually says is that "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55." Section 55 is a reference to the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the purpose of this portion of the bill is to mitigate the effects that new health care-related taxes would have on persons making over $350,000 a year. 

     

    Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. 

    This is false. The section of the bill referenced here is an updating of the physician fee schedule for Medicare services, which neither states that "all doctors will be paid the same regardless of specialty" nor that the "government will set all doctors' fees." All this section does is slightly revise the formula used for determining how much doctors are reimbursed for providing Medicare services, depending upon which of two categories those services fall under. 

     

    Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. 

    This is false. The section referenced here is one which does nothing more than call for a study to determine whether certain classes of hospitals incur higher costs than other hospitals for the cancer-related care they deliver, with the aim of providing "an appropriate adjustment [in payments] "to reflect those higher costs." This section in no way "rations care" provided by "cancer hospitals" based on a patient's age (or any other factor); it simply seeks to pay some hospitals more to compensate for their higher costs in treating cancer patients. 

     

    The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. 

    This is mostly false. As noted by FactCheck, forbids hospital expansion "only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to even this limited expansion ban." 

     

    The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. 

    This is false. This statement references a much-distorted portion of the bill that would allow for Medicare to cover voluntary counseling sessions for seniors with their doctors to discuss aspects of end-of-life care such as hospice care, DNR orders, life-sustaining treatments, living wills, and the like (a form of counseling not previously covered by Medicare). Nothing about such counseling sessions would be mandatory, for Social Security recipients or anyone else. 

     

    The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. 

    This is false. The bill does not "specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order." It merely defines an "end-of-life order" (i.e., an order for life-sustaining treatment) as a document "signed and dated by a physician [that] effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment." 

     

    It is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. 

    This is false. HB 3200 did not contain a provision stating that it would "not apply to members of Congress." The bill likely would have had little or no effect on members of Congress because they belong to a class of federal worker who have the benefit of choosing from a variety of subsidized insurance plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but the same requirements for obtaining and having health insurance would have applied to them just as much to other citizens. The version of the PPACA that was actually passed did indeed require lawmakers to give up the insurance coverage previously provided to them through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created.

Variations:   A later version of this piece was prefaced with the false claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act limits the amount of Medicare coverage provided to those over the age of 75:

PLEASE PASS THIS OUTRAGE TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!!! THIS should be read by everyone, especially important to those over 75.......If you are younger, then it applies to your parents. 

Your hospital Medicare admittance has just change under Obama Care. You must be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to pay for it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated as outpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tip of the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 & 2014! 

Age 76 Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have been getting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out the needle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got very quiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that my insurance takes care of it. 

She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr. about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but they had tried everything they could but Medicare is beginning to turn many things away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. She was brushing at tears and said, "Someday they too will get old", I am so very sorry!! 

Please for the sake of many good people ... be informed please. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS.

Last updated:   11 March 2014 
Edited by ocdude
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

but in a dinar site where the vast majority is left to far left leaning,

End Quote

You meant  " right to far right leaning"....Right?

 

 

 

You are correct Umbertino, thank you for the correction

When Obama lies ...it is not a lie ...we misunderstood.

ACA page 272 - No cancer treatment after age 76

ACA page 50   - Non US residents and 'illegals' are eligible for coverage

ACA pages 58-59 - Government has 'real-time' access to enrollees accounts for withdrawals 

ACA page 65   - Unions, union retirees', community organizations (ACORN eg.) will have subsidized rates

ACA page241-243 - Government boards will set rates for physician, hospital compensations on an equal basis

 

Generally: If the ACA panel decides no coverage, then any ACA authorized hospital or physician is NOT permitted to be paid privately by an individual or suffer the possible loss of license to practice medicine. Doctor and Hospital access is limited by the government to 'approved and enrolled facilities' and thus the insurance companies facilities for their ACA compliant policies.

   A Health insurance policy which does not provide the same or equivalent coverages  as the ACA policy is not to be available by any company that has provided coverages under a separate ACA compliant policy. ( ie.: birth control, gynelogical for men, prostrate coverages for women - read some of the mandatory coverages and understand why other policies cannot be issued even if you have no need for those coverages.)

  $400 Billion taken from Medicare employee and employer payments to "subsidize' the ACA.

 

  When Obama  illegally "waives the law or its' parts"  you can still be fined (taxed) by the IRS for non-compliance and that is the reason some companies and individuals comply with the 'written law of the land" passed by Congress.and signed by the "President''. (The IRS never does anything 'retroactively" does it?? They just "re-define" terms.)

  Progressive (means increased taxes) Socialism (some comrads are more equal than other comrads) and Marxism/Leninism, 'Rules for Radicals' are fundamental to BHO's actions. He intends to "fundamentally change America" - he even said so.

  READ the LAW for yourself (about 4-6 weeks of research)...you already know Pelosi, Reid and Obama are liars.

 

how about I debunk this one. 

 

 

Will seniors be denied cancer treatment under Obamacare?

rulings%2Ftom-pantsonfire.gif

 

 

 

According to a chain email making the rounds, people over 75 years old will be denied cancer treatment under theAffordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, after President Barack Obama.

 

 

The email also states that vitamin B12 shots won’t be covered under Medicare because of Obamacare. Also, your primary care physician will have to admit you into a hospital -- as opposed to, oh let’s say, an emergency care doctor -- or Medicare won’t pay for it, again, because of Obamacare.

 

 

Here’s a portion of the chain email, which a reader in Northeast Portland forwarded to PolitiFact Oregon, with a plea for more information. She said it came from a friend:

 

 

"Your hospital Medicare admittance has just changed under Obama Care. You must be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to pay for it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated as outpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tip of the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 & 2014! … (ellipses)

Please for the sake of many good people, please... pass this on. We all need to be informed.

 

 

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS...

 

 

At age 76 when you most need it, you are not eligible for cancer treatment page  272."

 

 

The email goes on with a long list of other claims as assessed by a Judge David Kithil of Marble Falls, Texas. PolitiFact Oregon hopped to it.

 

 

And we learned very quickly -- through the power of the Internet -- that a version of this chain email has been kicking around since 2009, based on H.R. 3200, a 2009 bill that did not become law. Many of the claims have been debunked. In fact, FactCheck.org found just four of the 48 claims in the original email to be accurate. PolitiFact ruled two statements to be Pants on Fire. The chain email has morphed over the years, with new assertions added.

 

 

As for the cancer-related statement, the email cites page 272 of H.R. 3200 to back up its assertion that seniors at 76 are not eligible for cancer treatment. Later, the email specifies that under Section 1145 of H.R. 3200, "cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age."

 

 

Neither statement is accurate. There is no rationing, based on age or otherwise, on cancer treatment under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act signed into law in March 2010. Likewise, there is no rationing or cut-off age in 2009’s H.R. 3200.

 

 

H.R. 3200 contained a section on "treatment of certain cancer hospitals." But the American Nurses Association described the section as  "the opposite of rationing. The section allows Medicare to pay cancer hospitals more if they are incurring higher costs." FactCheck.org agreeswith the nurses group. And again, the bill never became law.

 

 

"All medically necessary treatment is covered by Medicare. Including cancer treatments, regardless of age," said Katherine Fitzpatrick with the Medicare Rights Center in Washington, D.C. and in New York.

 

 

Yet, none of the debunking seems to matter, because four years later, the email lives on via the forward button. The Internet is unstoppable. What, we wondered, did the Texas judge think of his undying notoriety?

 

 

"I wish it would die. I can’t control it," David Kithil told PolitiFact Oregon. "I don’t know how something like that goes viral like that."

 

 

The former judge said he wrote a letter to his local newspaper in 2009, protesting the initial version of the health care act. The letter was published in the River Cities Daily Tribune, circulation 5,000. Somehow, he said, the letter was republished online. Kithil wants readers to disregard his letter as it is outdated and based on legislation that did not become law.

 

 

"I’ve had calls from all over the country, 300 to 400 calls over three or four years on this," he said. He pleads with the callers, "Don’t pass it on. It’s not accurate anymore. Trash it."

 

 

He says he still has problems with the Affordable Care Act, but that’s neither here nor there.

 

 

Both the Medicare Rights Center and AARP, the national organization for seniors, verified that hospital admittance has to do with billing under parts A or B of Medicare, the government health plan for seniors 65 and older. The Affordable Care Act reduces Medicare payments to hospitals with readmissions within 30 days for certain conditions, such as pneumonia, but that’s not based on who admits the patient.

 

 

Also, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid says Medicare has never coveredvitamin B12 shots as a preventive benefit. Again, this isn’t related to the Affordable Care Act.

 

 

Older patients diagnosed with cancer need not worry that treatment will be rationed or denied under the Affordable Care Act. The claim is based on an inaccurate reading of a bill that went nowhere. We don’t know where or how the specific age of 76 was added -- Kithil said he doesn’t remember including a specific age in his letter.

 

 

But we do know enough to rule this widely debunked and ridiculous-on-its-face statement a Pants on Fire.

How about another source that debunks what you believ

 

 

A judge's letter on health care and an email gone viral

 

PH2011012003486.jpg

 

 

 

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS: ObamaCare Highlighted by Page Number ...All of the above should give you the point blank ammo you need to support your opposition to Obamacare. Please send this information on to all of your email contacts." 

 

 

--excerpts from an email zooming around the United States

 

 

 

Zygmunt Plater, a professor at Boston College Law School, sent The Fact Checker a copy of the above email, which purports to be an analysis of the new health care law by a judge, complete with page citations. Plater's brother, Marek, had sent him a copy of the email, asking if it could be verified, after receiving it Wednesday from a senior official at the company where he works. Under the subject heading of "Read and Heed," the official sent the email to company employees with the notation, "We are now officially out of control." There's some pretty scary stuff in here: cancer care will be rationed according to age, the government would have "real-time access" to an individual's bank accounts, the government will set all doctor's fees, and so forth. So what's truth?

 

 

 

The Facts

 

 

Just because it is in an email--or on the Internet--does not make it true, especially when it is woefully out of date

 

 

.

There is indeed a former county judge named David Kithil who lives in Marble Falls, Texas, which is about 50 miles northeast of Austin. In August, 2009, he wrote a letter to the River Cities Tribune, a local newspaper with a circulation of under 5,000, detailing his objections to one of the health care bills then pending in the House of Representatives--H.R. 3200.

 

 

 

As a former judge of Burnet County, Texas, Kithil is not a health care expert--and congressional language can be obtuse. His analysis is often debatable. The assertion of "real-time access" to bank accounts appears to be referring to a benign section allowing electronic funds transfers. The claim about doctors' fees refers to boilerplate saying the government will not pay less than rates set under Medicare. Similarly, the bill does not ration cancer care, but allows for a study of whether specialty hospitals are charging more for the same service as general hospitals--and then would actually boost payments to general hospitals.

 

 

 

But in any case, he was analyzing a bill that had not yet passed the House. The language was changed before final House passage in November, 2009. Then the Senate in December passed its own, more conservative version of a health care overhaul. By March, 2010, the House accepted much of the Senate bill, with some adjustments. While the email refers to the dangers of so-called "Obamacare," Kithil's letter has little to do with the final version of the legislation--which Kithil readily acknowledges.

 

 

"What I wrote about was a bill that never became law," Kithil said in a telephone interview Thursday. He said he has not had an opportunity to go through the final bill, but knows that some of the items that had concerned him were not enacted into law.

 

 

 

But the letter is certainly an email and Internet sensation. A Google search for "David Kithil and Obamacare" turns up nearly 2,000 examples of his letter posted on websitesblogs and forums--including as recently as this month. Kithil said that someone had called the newspaper and asked permission to put the letter in an email. The next thing he knew, he was getting calls from around the country. The calls have actually picked up in recent weeks, he said, adding: "It really shows the power of the Internet."

 

 

The Pinocchio Test

The lesson here is that facts need to come from reputable, credible sources, not an email chain. Kithil is in many ways an innocent bystander. He never claimed to be an expert and merely offered his opinion to the local newspaper. There are many critiques of the health care law, both from the left and right, which have been written by health care and legislative experts. That's where people need to go for more information.

 

 

Four Pinocchios--not to Kithil, but to anyone who keeps forwarding this email.

 

pinocchio.gifpinocchio.gifpinocchio.gifpinocchio.gif

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not wait and see how the ACA works in another year. No large Law has ever started with no Kinks in it and that is the same for the ACA however it has and will benefit many more as time goes on. It's about working together not Hating each other!

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice drive bye studly.

Hit and run then don't have the intestinal fortitude to come back and defend your stance. 

 

Pretty much says it all 

Yep, driving his mommy's Prius wearing only his Capt. America underroos  :butt-kicking:

Dinar Stud:

 

I hope you'll receive my request in the manner in which I send it -- I'd really like your sources that backup your claims: 

 Good Luck with that, he is infamous for not responding to challenges of his 'yellow' spewing...

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic case of why we say... Please attack the message... Not the messenger.

 

Some Of You Are Absolutely Brilliant At That!!!

 

 

What still remains after all the BS has been "debunked" (removed from the facts)?

 

Perhaps that may be more productive to spend our time on... Just a thought. :)

Edited by Maggie123
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well since arguing over the law doesn't seem to work, how about anecdotal evidence. My old college roommate is currently a partner at a major architecture construction design firm in Seattle. They do multi-million dollar construction projects for school districts and major companies, such as Target, Walmart, etc. They employ approximately 150 employees. He stated to me that the ObummerCare law is having such large impacts on their bottom line, that they are adjusting hiring plans for the foreseeable future.

 

Don't tell me this law is good for this country...everthing that is being identified as reasons the law should be repealed are coming true.

 

Indy

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying this in defence of conservatives any more than I would defend a liberal, cause frankly, if a person is so strongly identified with a label, instead of individual issues and principles, then I don't really want to discuss anything political with them, as its nothing more than an exercise in debating definitions..Well that and I don't think I'd mix very well with anyone who was more loyal to their label than the issue...

 

That said, I rather doubt that the conservatives referenced in this article are really lying as much as they are talking out of their skirt... Meaning, they haven't read the law, or studied the issue, and in contrast simply parrot whatever their aid tells them to say.... Shame on them... and the liberals who as do this as well..... I truly believe they don't have a flippin clue what they saying half the time... and simply go with buzz words, or slogan driven themes.... and why not? There is no integrity meter any more.... What happens if they do get caught in a lie..... uhmmm nothing.. Conservative and liberal alike... nothing... And usually their lie is usurped by the next big crisis, or headline, or email, or news blurb, and it all gets lost... The amount of information we have to sort through every day is without question.... overwhelming... and so in the midst of that, who is going to have enough integrity not to take advantage of that????

 

It is those people I will vote for when the time comes... those who have enough integrity to tell the truth at the time their lips are moving.... (and day'um it YES I would much rather hear I don't know, than some idiotic repeating of the latest buzz of the day) The people who dont talk just to talk.... or make grandiose announcements and pronouncements every other day, that turn out to be only a fraction of what is true.... (course the former will be more likely to re election by the masses) Oh and yeah, there are some I will vote out simply because they have been there too long and are more vested in their career than representing those who elected them....

 

Looks like all of government is doing what many of us learned a long time ago.... it is always better to ask for forgiveness than for permission.... age old axiom of many of those elected or appointed in government... Nothing new, once again....

 

One of these days I am going to follow my resolution to not respond to any post with liberal or conservative in the title, ..... as there are so few salient points of meaningful discussion.... However, at the same time, there is some learning and it was interesting to note that the histrionic mutterings of some about the faults of  ACA were wrong or factually inaccurate.... ( and to that I would add that an ER physician would never admit a patient.... long, long, long, before ACA.... as the ER doc would not be the attending... and if you are in, you need a primary, or attending specialist... not the ER doc... duh)... ... .

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic case of why we say... Please attack the message... Not the messenger.

 

Some Of You Are Absolutely Brilliant At That!!!

 

 

What still remains after all the BS has been "debunked" (removed from the facts)?

 

Perhaps that may be more productive to spend our time on... Just a thought. :)

Good luck with that! They would rather hit the neg button that see the truth.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.