Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 68 of 68
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    Quit being in denial
    You can't have it both ways. I can't be implying your source's untrustworthiness on one hand and using it in an example on the other.
    I'm not the one whining about people not being able to read it before it being pushed through congress either. Context goes a long way.
    Yes, it does, which is why I found it odd that someone would get up on a soapbox and tell someone else who had already at least starting reading the bill to read it, when they had not read it themselves. It's even more telling that we're then seeing accusations of whining and denial from that same someone.
    No where as bad as your reading comprehension.
    My reading comprehension is historically pretty adequate. Perhaps in your desire to be tersely dismissive instead of having a productive discussion, you're not adequately expressing your position?
    Hmm so you'd rather take the path of most resistance? Interesting.
    Sometimes one has to persevere.
    The relevant parts.
    Except that you won't have that all important context.
    No but you were quite willing to put in your 2cents without having read it yourself.
    Well, sure. It's a discussion forum. You seem to be having a little trouble getting my original point, though. I suppose I could have been unclear. It ultimately doesn't matter to me that you didn't read it, or that you're using your precious little free time to try and snipe at me here.
    If all the dems unite, the opposition would not matter.
    That was sort of my point.
    Apparently they can't seem to do that.
    Apparently not.
    Facts are facts. It doesn't matter who wrote them.
    To a large extent, no. However, it does matter if one isn't going to verify those facts. Otherwise, you're down to just trusting that someone else is relaying those facts accurately.
    Faith based positions don't deal in facts.
    Not exactly, no. They deal in trust. They trust that because someone they trust told them A, B, and C, and there is some evidence to support parts of A, B, and C, that A, B, and C are completely accurate.
    Again you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
    Trying to insult me is really a waste of your precious free time. I'll either ignore it, or I'll casually throw a complementary remark your way. Maybe you should try actually having a human discussion. The way you're going is really the path of most resistance.
    Or maybe you need to quit reaching so hard.
    Haven't strained anything yet.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #62  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    You can't have it both ways. I can't be implying your source's untrustworthiness on one hand and using it in an example on the other.
    Because such information is second or third hand information at best.
    ^ This is what you wrote earlier. Since you seem to think I read you wrong, what were you saying here?

    Yes, it does, which is why I found it odd that someone would get up on a soapbox and tell someone else who had already at least starting reading the bill to read it, when they had not read it themselves. It's even more telling that we're then seeing accusations of whining and denial from that same someone.
    Because I was familiar with the parts of the bill in contention having read about them elsewhere. Rather than search the original document which was a pain, I opted to search for a quicker source. And even though I found it on several sites/blogs I chose the WSJ snippet because of their reputation.

    Maybe I wasn't clear, but the main reason I posted the original link was to demonstrate that the bill is readily available for those who want to read it. It was really a direct response to the previous post. It wasn't supposed to imply I read through it myself. And I guess that's where some of the contention is. Like a legal contract, it is written in a form that's not the easiest to follow. And I still stand by my original point: it's not necessary to read through the bill as other shorter versions are readily available. The main point being that the bill IS available to the public.

    My reading comprehension is historically pretty adequate. Perhaps in your desire to be tersely dismissive instead of having a productive discussion, you're not adequately expressing your position?
    Historically accurate? Where is this history? Here you're saying one thing in one sentence and completely denying it in another. Makes me wonder.

    Sometimes one has to persevere.
    True but it's unnecessary in this case as the information is contantly changing and readily available all over the web.



    Well, sure. It's a discussion forum. You seem to be having a little trouble getting my original point, though. I suppose I could have been unclear. It ultimately doesn't matter to me that you didn't read it, or that you're using your precious little free time to try and snipe at me here.
    I wouldn't snipe at you if you'd get down from your holier-than-thou soapbox calling into the question the info I posted. Not only was I the one that posted the original link, I'm the one that posted the followup links. You posted nothing to remotely back up what you were trying to imply. If you're going to call the links I posted into question, at least have something to back up your claims.


    To a large extent, no. However, it does matter if one isn't going to verify those facts. Otherwise, you're down to just trusting that someone else is relaying those facts accurately.
    Again here you are making the assumption I didn't cross check with other sources, some the bill itself, others the senators involved. You have no idea what I read or did before posting the info. Again if the info is wrong, show me where it's wrong. Telling me it might be wrong doesn't really bolster your point.

    Not exactly, no. They deal in trust. They trust that because someone they trust told them A, B, and C, and there is some evidence to support parts of A, B, and C, that A, B, and C are completely accurate.
    There is NO evidence anywhere to support the existence of God. But there is evidence to support the info I posted is in fact in the Bill and I posted links to some of that evidence. If you have evidence to the contrary, then by all means post it.

    This thread isn't even in the same ballbark as the creation thread and I'm not sure why you continue to beat a dead horse by making that comparison.


    Trying to insult me is really a waste of your precious free time. I'll either ignore it, or I'll casually throw a complementary remark your way. Maybe you should try actually having a human discussion. The way you're going is really the path of most resistance.
    Not trying to insult you really, but you're making it pretty difficult for me not to call your agenda into question.
    Sony Clie --> Tungsten t2 --> iPhone3g --> Palm Pre --> Droid
  3. #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    ^ This is what you wrote earlier. Since you seem to think I read you wrong, what were you saying here?
    Obviously at this point, I know you read me wrong. I was saying that such information is second or third hand at best. That does not mean that it's inaccurate. It means it's not the primary source. That's it.
    Maybe I wasn't clear, but the main reason I posted the original link was to demonstrate that the bill is readily available for those who want to read it.
    I think you were clear, but in context it seemed out of place. clemgrad85's complaint wasn't that people didn't have access to read it. It was that people were not going to have time to read it and understand it before it was passed if it were rushed through on the original schedule.
    It was really a direct response to the previous post. It wasn't supposed to imply I read through it myself.
    Nor did I take it as such at the time.
    And I guess that's where some of the contention is. Like a legal contract, it is written in a form that's not the easiest to follow. And I still stand by my original point: it's not necessary to read through the bill as other shorter versions are readily available. The main point being that the bill IS available to the public.
    That was never in contention.
    Historically accurate?
    Read it again. Then question my reading comprehension.
    Where is this history?
    Personal history. I generally don't have much trouble adequately understanding what people are saying. If I had to point to a shortfall, it would be that I don't tend to invest or read emotion from text-based forums. It has to be pretty blatant.
    Here you're saying one thing in one sentence and completely denying it in another. Makes me wonder.
    What am I saying and then denying?
    I wouldn't snipe at you if you'd get down from your holier-than-thou soapbox calling into the question the info I posted.
    My point is that I was never on a soapbox, and never in fact questioned the info you posted.
    Not only was I the one that posted the original link, I'm the one that posted the followup links. You posted nothing to remotely back up what you were trying to imply.
    Perhaps because I wasn't implying anything.
    If you're going to call the links I posted into question, at least have something to back up your claims.
    I never called the link into question. The most I called into question was your denigrating faith-based beliefs.
    Again here you are making the assumption I didn't cross check with other sources, some the bill itself, others the senators involved. You have no idea what I read or did before posting the info.
    True, I only have your statement that you're not going to sift through 1000+ pages.
    Again if the info is wrong, show me where it's wrong. Telling me it might be wrong doesn't really bolster your point.
    I didn't say the info was wrong. At most, I said you were putting faith in its accuracy.
    There is NO evidence anywhere to support the existence of God.
    That really depends upon one's definition of God. Some believers state that the simple fact that we are here is evidence of a Creator. I'm not inclined to think that way, but I'm not inclined to dissuade them from that belief as long as they are not trying to impose it upon me.
    But there is evidence to support the info I posted is in fact in the Bill and I posted links to some of that evidence. If you have evidence to the contrary, then by all means post it.
    If I were trying to disprove it, I would. As it is, I only posted an example of how easy it was to hit their numbers and implicitly questioned if the authors had thought things through.
    Not trying to insult you really, but you're making it pretty difficult for me not to call your agenda into question.
    I use the built-in Datebook on my Centro.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #64  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Obviously at this point, I know you read me wrong. I was saying that such information is second or third hand at best. That does not mean that it's inaccurate. It means it's not the primary source. That's it.
    I'm well aware it's not the primary source. No need to point that out.

    I think you were clear, but in context it seemed out of place. clemgrad85's complaint wasn't that people didn't have access to read it. It was that people were not going to have time to read it and understand it before it was passed if it were rushed through on the original schedule.
    That's your spin on what clemgrad85 said. There are many people who do not know the bill is even available online. Besides, does it really matter?? Even if everyone can read and understand it (which sadly is highly unlikely), half will agree and the other half will disagree. This country has been split right down the middle for a long time and it's not going to change any time soon. I think we need a serious overhaul of the health care system and it's got to start at some point.

    Personal history. I generally don't have much trouble adequately understanding what people are saying. If I had to point to a shortfall, it would be that I don't tend to invest or read emotion from text-based forums. It has to be pretty blatant.
    I'm really not that concerned about your comprehension of what I wrote as I am about what you yourself wrote. Seems like you have a split personality.

    If you're not trying to cast doubt on the info, maybe you shouldn't bring up of the fact that it's a second hand source since there is no other purpose for mentioning such.

    What am I saying and then denying?
    I already pointed it out.

    My point is that I was never on a soapbox, and never in fact questioned the info you posted.

    Perhaps because I wasn't implying anything.
    See below.

    I didn't say the info was wrong. At most, I said you were putting faith in its accuracy.
    Which would automatically imply you weren't. Which in turn implies you don't believe that link is trustworthy, which in turn calls into question the figures.

    One of the links I posted was to the speaker of the House, you know, Nancy Pelosi? Yeah she had a hand in the drafting of the bill. I guess I shouldn't trust her numbers right?


    That really depends upon one's definition of God. Some believers state that the simple fact that we are here is evidence of a Creator. I'm not inclined to think that way, but I'm not inclined to dissuade them from that belief as long as they are not trying to impose it upon me.
    That fact that we exist is NOT evidence of a Creator anymore than it is evidence we were created by Aliens in some crazy experiment millions of years ago. It has and always will be a ridiculous argument without scientific proof.


    If I were trying to disprove it, I would. As it is, I only posted an example of how easy it was to hit their numbers and implicitly questioned if the authors had thought things through.
    So do you accept the info or not? Because in between your backpedaling, I got lost.
    Sony Clie --> Tungsten t2 --> iPhone3g --> Palm Pre --> Droid
  5. #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Kinda like those "hikers" strolling along the Iraq-Iran border? Yeah. They put themselves in that situation.

    Not saying that they deserved the punishment, e.g., 14 years was a bit harsh.... but that was all just so the NK could get our attention. Surely you understand that, Lester.
    14 years for "trespassing" onto land that government illigitimately "owns" only by force is a little more than a "bit harsh." More like criminal.
  6. #66  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    That's your spin on what clemgrad85 said.
    I have no reason to spin what he said. It's how I read it. But then again, what do I know. I write and read the word 'adequate' where you read 'accurate'.
    There are many people who do not know the bill is even available online.
    He isn't one of them. I try to pay attention to overall context.
    Besides, does it really matter??
    In the grand scheme of things, no it doesn't. It's just words on a screen.
    I'm really not that concerned about your comprehension of what I wrote as I am about what you yourself wrote. Seems like you have a split personality.
    That's your spin on it. Certainly much easier than actually considering an alternate view I suppose.
    If you're not trying to cast doubt on the info, maybe you shouldn't bring up of the fact that it's a second hand source since there is no other purpose for mentioning such.
    There is certainly another purpose. However, it would appear to be hopelessly lost on you. Thanks for clarifying.
    I already pointed it out.
    You mean where you questioned 'historically accurate' when I said 'adequate'?
    Which would automatically imply you weren't.
    No, it wouldn't in context. In context, it should imply that I find it odd that you are being rude and insulting towards people based on their faith in X, and yet displaying similar behavior elsewhere. And yet I'm the one with the 'split personality'. Now, I'm sure that you won't acknowledge the similarity, and will just try to spin some more insults at me, but this is one case where I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by mdmogren View Post
    14 years for "trespassing" onto land that government illigitimately "owns" only by force is a little more than a "bit harsh." More like criminal.
    Their purpose wasn't punishment, criminal or otherwise. Their purpose was to open doors for concession.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. #68  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I have no reason to spin what he said. It's how I read it.
    Exactly it's your spin.

    He isn't one of them. I try to pay attention to overall context.
    Well I'm glad you know him better than I do. This is a public forum, the link wasn't just for him.

    There is certainly another purpose. However, it would appear to be hopelessly lost on you. Thanks for clarifying.
    Really? I must have missed it in all your backpedaling.

    No, it wouldn't in context. In context, it should imply that I find it odd that you are being rude and insulting towards people based on their faith in X
    , and yet displaying similar behavior elsewhere. And yet I'm the one with the 'split personality'. Now, I'm sure that you won't acknowledge the similarity, and will just try to spin some more insults at me, but this is one case where I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.
    You were chastising me for having 'faith' as you put it in second hand sources. The implication is clear - you don't have faith in the sources I cited. It's very simple yet you keep spinning it, adding bits and pieces, going off in left field.

    I already told you I cross-checked the sources, plus I posted a very ligit link from the speaker of house. That's all the proof I need. Also you keep bringing up the other thread into this discussion grasping at straws trying to equate religious faith to my posting a few links of consolidated info (some revised) from the health care bill.

    Since I'm obviously wasting my time, I'll let you have the last word.
    Last edited by darreno1; 08/15/2009 at 09:34 PM.
    Sony Clie --> Tungsten t2 --> iPhone3g --> Palm Pre --> Droid
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions