Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The President Called a liar during speech.

The President Called a liar during speech. (Page 4)
Thread Tools
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I was listening to local radio host this morning and a caller brought up a good point. NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, La Raza LULAC, and the other groups would be up in arms if abortions and illeg.. sorry, undocumented immigrants weren't covered by HR 3200 or whatever bill comes out. Have you heard a peep from these groups? No.
Interesting.

conservative paranoia at full steam.

Hitler, reeducation camps, forced abortions, forced sex changes, death panels.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Interesting.

conservative paranoia at full steam.

Hitler, reeducation camps, forced abortions, forced sex changes, death panels.
Have you heard NOW or NARAL complain that abortion will not be covered by HR 3200?
45/47
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Have you heard NOW or NARAL complain that abortion will not be covered by HR 3200?
Sounds like you are using circular logic to feed one paranoid theory with another paranoid theory.

Because there's a secret hidden clause in the HR3200 bill that forces women to get abortions whether they want it or not. It's called the forced abortion clause. It's right next to the forced sex-change clause.
( Last edited by hyteckit; Sep 15, 2009 at 01:19 PM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 01:40 PM
 
I've been busy and haven't been able to reply. Since I last posted, we've determined:

a. There where no safeguards or eligibility checks required by the laws in question when Joe Wilson spoke up.

b. We've got quotes showing that despite programs being technically not available to illegals, the programs would still be available to them if they just wanted to sign up and get the benefits anyway despite it not being "legal" technically.

c. These are people who are already in violation of United States federal immigration laws and have shown that they won't voluntarily abide by federal laws in regards to their status as non-citizens.

d. It's highly likely Obama knew that there where no safeguards, because Democrats had already struck down the safeguards proposed by Republicans.

e. I believe I read that the White House is NOW calling for safeguards to be put into place so that Obama doesn't have to be rightfully called a liar.

Sounds like Joe Wilson told the truth, even though he did it in a completely ********* way.
     
ort888
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Your Anus
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 01:53 PM
 
"Truth" can be subjective. The truth is whatever you want it to be.

When you have it in your head that Obama and anyone with a "D" next to their name is a mustache-twirling villain actively seeking to hurt America, it's not surprising to see how the truth might look different to you then it does to someone else.

My sig is 1 pixel too big.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 02:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
"Truth" can be subjective. The truth is whatever you want it to be.
No. For example, that statement is objectively wrong. For another example, it doesn't matter if I think I am 6'4" — that doesn't change my height one inch.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 02:35 PM
 
curious for the joe wilson crowd, what do you think of kanye west's outburst?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 02:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Sounds like you are using circular logic to feed one paranoid theory with another paranoid theory.

Because there's a secret hidden clause in the HR3200 bill that forces women to get abortions whether they want it or not. It's called the forced abortion clause. It's right next to the forced sex-change clause.
That doesn't answer the question. Have you heard any of those groups complain?
45/47
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
That doesn't answer the question. Have you heard any of those groups complain?
What would they complain about? That the bills don't reference abortion? It's not in NARAL's political interest at all to work abortion into an already contentious health care insurance reform debate when the status quo is that most abortions are already covered by insurance.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 02:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
curious for the joe wilson crowd, what do you think of kanye west's outburst?
Who's "the Joe Wilson crowd"? To my knowledge, there's only the one of him. Are all Republicans also the Joe Wilson crowd? People who also think Obama was lying? People with Tourette's?
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 04:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Who's "the Joe Wilson crowd"? To my knowledge, there's only the one of him. Are all Republicans also the Joe Wilson crowd? People who also think Obama was lying? People with Tourette's?
hey *******, did i say all republicans?
( Last edited by ironknee; Sep 15, 2009 at 08:25 PM. Reason: i got a warning)
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
hey dummy, did i say all republicans?
No, you didn't. You said "the Joe Wilson crowd." But as I pointed out, Joe Wilson is not a crowd, he's an individual person. So I asked what you meant when you said "the Joe Wilson crowd." Thus far you have not answered that question, so I don't know how anybody here is supposed to tell if they are "the Joe Wilson crowd." For example, if you think what Joe Wilson said was factually accurate but the manner in which he said it was in poor taste, are you the Joe Wilson crowd?
( Last edited by Chuckit; Sep 15, 2009 at 04:56 PM. )
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 05:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
When you have it in your head that Obama and anyone with a "D" next to their name is a mustache-twirling villain actively seeking to hurt America, it's not surprising to see how the truth might look different to you then it does to someone else.

Everybody knows that Obama doesn't have a mustache, so therefore he can't be twirling something he doesn't have!

... Unless he sometimes wears a fake mustache? Maybe one that looks like Hitler's?
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 08:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
No. For example, that statement is objectively wrong. For another example, it doesn't matter if I think I am 6'4" — that doesn't change my height one inch.
That depends on how one defines "feet" and "inches". For example, if one defines an inch as "three grains of sound ripe barley being taken out the middle of the ear, well dried, and laid end to end in a row", the "truth" of your height might change from year-to-year and region-to-region. Also, a person's height will change during the course of the day, again changing the "truth" based on circumstance.

"Truth" is subjective.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 08:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
No, you didn't. You said "the Joe Wilson crowd." But as I pointed out, Joe Wilson is not a crowd, he's an individual person. So I asked what you meant when you said "the Joe Wilson crowd." Thus far you have not answered that question, so I don't know how anybody here is supposed to tell if they are "the Joe Wilson crowd." For example, if you think what Joe Wilson said was factually accurate but the manner in which he said it was in poor taste, are you the Joe Wilson crowd?
first, since i got a macnn notification saying i am warned for call you the d**** word.

Chuckit, I am sorry. I lost my cool and i am sorry to my fellow forum readers for bringing this down.

as for the "joe wilson crowd" is it that hard to figure out that what i meant is those who support his calling the president a lie(r)? if so, how about the forum users who thinks joe wilson did nothing that bad/wrong and therefore supports his behavior... how's that?
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 08:38 PM
 
I think the Joe Wilson crowd are the people who buy the "I'm with Joe Wilson" t-shirts.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 08:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
That depends on how one defines "feet" and "inches". For example, if one defines an inch as "three grains of sound ripe barley being taken out the middle of the ear, well dried, and laid end to end in a row", the "truth" of your height might change from year-to-year and region-to-region.
No, it wouldn't. That would simply mean different units were in use. If you converted one person's inches to another's, you would find they work out to the same thing. I don't get taller or shorter depending on whether we use inches, cubits, centimeters or miles to measure my height — the actual length is the same. All you are demonstrating is that people express the same truth differently.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Also, a person's height will change during the course of the day, again changing the "truth" based on circumstance.
Of course the truth can change depending on the circumstances — like, duh. But my height at any given point in time is more or less a concrete fact. This is a basic tenet of science. If the world worked the way you suggest, we'd never be able to fly because for some people an airplane might not have wings.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 09:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Of course the truth can change depending on the circumstances — like, duh. But my height at any given point in time is more or less a concrete fact. This is a basic tenet of science. If the world worked the way you suggest, we'd never be able to fly because for some people an airplane might not have wings.
But, you've just agreed with me. "Truth" can change depending on the circumstances. Some circumstances change the truth very little, such as the truths that allow us to fly. Others can change quite a bit, particularly those based on such unscientific things as political opinion. I don't think there's much question that if Policy Z were introduced by Political Party A it would be opposed by Political Party B and that if Policy Z were introduced by Political Part B it would be opposed by Political Part A.

Put another way, if Obama were to declare war on Iran, I strongly suspect that it would be opposed by Republicans and if Bush had announced Universal Health Care it would be opposed by Democrats.
     
Chuckit
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 10:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
But, you've just agreed with me. "Truth" can change depending on the circumstances.
Your assertion was that the "truth is subjective," agreeing with ort's statement that it is "whatever you want it to be". That's quite different from saying that the truth can change depending on the circumstances. In fact, I think the two statements are mutually exclusive — there must be an objective truth in the first place in order for circumstances to change it.

If all you meant to say is that the facts of one situation differ from the facts of another, then I guess I agree.
Chuck
___
"Instead of either 'multi-talented' or 'multitalented' use 'bisexual'."
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 15, 2009, 10:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chuckit View Post
Your assertion was that the "truth is subjective," agreeing with ort's statement that it is "whatever you want it to be". That's quite different from saying that the truth can change depending on the circumstances. In fact, I think the two statements are mutually exclusive — there must be an objective truth in the first place in order for circumstances to change it.
Not at all, if the circumstance in question is a difference of opinion.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2009, 06:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by ort888 View Post
"Truth" can be subjective. The truth is whatever you want it to be.
I want it to be something that can be proven factually beyond a reasonable doubt to the vast majority. That's why I provided evidence that all but a total moron would take as reasonable. If you want some other standard, then you are free to take it, though I'd suggest that you won't appear very credible to too many people.

That's the thing about truth - you pick a poor standard and you'll be judged on it.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2009, 05:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
That doesn't answer the question. Have you heard any of those groups complain?
Well, NOW wants a universal plan rather than a public option.

How do you want them to complain? Call Pres. Obama a Indonesian Muslim Nazi?


PETA hasn't complain either. So the HR3200 must cover healthcare for my pets?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2009, 08:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I want it to be something that can be proven factually beyond a reasonable doubt to the vast majority. That's why I provided evidence that all but a total moron would take as reasonable. If you want some other standard, then you are free to take it, though I'd suggest that you won't appear very credible to too many people.

That's the thing about truth - you pick a poor standard and you'll be judged on it.
Except, your "evidence" is subjective. The "evidence" you've provided is *not* something that can prove your position factually beyond a reasonable doubt, not matter how hard you try to insult people who disagree with it by calling them "total morons".
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2009, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Except, your "evidence" is subjective. The "evidence" you've provided is *not* something that can prove your position factually beyond a reasonable doubt, not matter how hard you try to insult people who disagree with it by calling them "total morons".
If that were the case, then the way to win the argument would be simply to:

A. Refute the facts. Please explain which parts of the evidence is not true. I've yet to see anyone do that by any reasonable means.

B. If you concede the evidence as being fact, but do not agree that the facts show what is claimed, provide support. Explain how being a Communist in a high government position is not something to worry about. Explain how showing your rabid paranoia as a "truther" isn't evidence that you harbor radical beliefs. Show us that it's reasonble to suggest that things like what happened at Columbine happened because if the color of the skin of those involved.

You see, it's real easy to CLAIM evidence is subjective or false, but a lot harder to back it up when it really isn't.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2009, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
If that were the case, then the way to win the argument would be simply to:

A. Refute the facts. Please explain which parts of the evidence is not true. I've yet to see anyone do that by any reasonable means.
I'm not saying your evidence is not true. I'm saying your evidence requires a subjective interpretation to prove your point. I can point out the fact that the daytime sky is blue, but that doesn't necessarily support my argumnent that the nighttime sky is green.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2009, 08:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
A. Refute the facts. Please explain which parts of the evidence is not true. I've yet to see anyone do that by any reasonable means.

B. If you concede the evidence as being fact, but do not agree that the facts show what is claimed, provide support.
Is this the Introduction to the Opposites? Or maybe it's national Irony Day. I can't tell.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2009, 09:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I've been busy and haven't been able to reply. Since I last posted, we've determined:

a. There where no safeguards or eligibility checks required by the laws in question when Joe Wilson spoke up.

b. We've got quotes showing that despite programs being technically not available to illegals, the programs would still be available to them if they just wanted to sign up and get the benefits anyway despite it not being "legal" technically.

c. These are people who are already in violation of United States federal immigration laws and have shown that they won't voluntarily abide by federal laws in regards to their status as non-citizens.

d. It's highly likely Obama knew that there where no safeguards, because Democrats had already struck down the safeguards proposed by Republicans.

e. I believe I read that the White House is NOW calling for safeguards to be put into place so that Obama doesn't have to be rightfully called a liar.

Sounds like Joe Wilson told the truth, even though he did it in a completely ********* way.
There are safeguards or eligibility checks required by existing laws.

So Joe Wilson lied.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 12:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
There are safeguards or eligibility checks required by existing laws.

So Joe Wilson lied.
There are no "existing" laws which have created these new health care plans. As it's been explained, there were no requirements for the types of eligibility checks in place for other government programs to be put into place for these new programs in the laws being created.

I've asked about 4 time now...but can you show where in the laws pre-Obama's speech it required strict eligibility checks?
( Last edited by stupendousman; Sep 18, 2009 at 01:08 AM. )
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 12:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I'm not saying your evidence is not true. I'm saying your evidence requires a subjective interpretation to prove your point. I can point out the fact that the daytime sky is blue, but that doesn't necessarily support my argumnent that the nighttime sky is green.
...because you've presented no evidence in regards to what color the sky is at night.

On the other hand, evidence has been presented which shows that Van Jones has been engaged in one form of radical or hateful endeavor though most of his adult life, and eased back into simply being "controversial" because he realized that if he wanted to forward the kind of anti-American changes he wanted, he was going to have to be more subtle about it. It's not just ME claiming Jones was using his "environment" positions to push for radical left-wing changes to our government in a way that would appear more mainstream - he said so himself.

If you can't refute the evidence, then you're going to have to get specific about what you do refute. That there should be no fear having a Communist in charge of a high political office? That it's okay to suggest that only white people engage in some kinds of crimes? That George Bush conspired to kill thousands of innocent Americans and do billions of dollars of damage? That moderating your tone just to appear less controversial (ie. being a phony) so that you can enact radical plans isn't anything to cause a fret? What specifically do you think is reasonable and not worthy of an extremely negative label?

Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Is this the Introduction to the Opposites? Or maybe it's national Irony Day. I can't tell.
When you start wearing "big boy pants" and are allowed to sit at the adults table, you'll be able to comprehend a lot more than you do now I'm sure.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 01:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
There are no "existing" laws which have created these new health care plans. As it's been explained, there were no requirements for the types of eligibility checks in place for other government programs to be put into place for these new programs in the laws being created.

I've asked about 4 time now...but can you show where in the laws pre-Obama's speech it required strict eligibility checks?
Sure there is.

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
Social Security Act
Immigration and Nationality Act


SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.
(a) DEFINITION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this divi-
sion, the term ‘‘affordable credit eligible individual’’ means, subject to subsection (b), an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a sub- paragraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act)—
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 07:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Sure there is.

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
Social Security Act
Immigration and Nationality Act


SEC. 242. AFFORDABLE CREDIT ELIGIBLE INDIVIDUAL.
(a) DEFINITION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this divi-
sion, the term ‘‘affordable credit eligible individual’’ means, subject to subsection (b), an individual who is lawfully present in a State in the United States (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a sub- paragraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act)—
Wow...

When you fail, you're not afraid to do it big and bold.

I understand that the law SAYS that they aren't eligible. The problem is that the law does not provide (and your quote does not show) ANY requirement to actually CHECK to see if the person in question IS eligible.

Illegal aliens get federally backed home loans right now from US lending institutions even though their very existence here in the United States violates federal law. This occurs because there are no legal safeguards or checks in order to ensure that those receiving help are actually even eligible to reside in the United States.

Do you want to try again? I'm holding out hope that maybe there's a clause or phrase someone in the law that actually makes Joe Wilson a liar, because I can't believe that people would go to all this trouble when they don't have a leg to stand on.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 09:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Wow...

When you fail, you're not afraid to do it big and bold.

I understand that the law SAYS that they aren't eligible. The problem is that the law does not provide (and your quote does not show) ANY requirement to actually CHECK to see if the person in question IS eligible.

Illegal aliens get federally backed home loans right now from US lending institutions even though their very existence here in the United States violates federal law. This occurs because there are no legal safeguards or checks in order to ensure that those receiving help are actually even eligible to reside in the United States.

Do you want to try again? I'm holding out hope that maybe there's a clause or phrase someone in the law that actually makes Joe Wilson a liar, because I can't believe that people would go to all this trouble when they don't have a leg to stand on.
Bingo! This is a losing battle with hyteckit unfortunately. He keeps repeating the same tired language from the bill failing to realize that this language is in every means-tested Federal Program ever drafted. There has to be an enforcement mechanism in place. He will continue this argument in spite of the wealth of expertise saying otherwise up to and including the Congressional Research Service and the Center for Immigration Studies.

He thought he closed our argument by asking whether or not this safe-guard exists in any other Federal program until he realized that it is included in the Baucus plan. (of course, maybe he didn't realize this) I'm still waiting on hyteckit to show me where a "Choices Commissioner" exists in any other Federal program, but I guess this precedent notion wasn't as important to him as he wanted me to believe.

He'll no doubt copy-paste the language of the bill again for posterity.
ebuddy
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
When you start wearing "big boy pants" and are allowed to sit at the adults table, you'll be able to comprehend a lot more than you do now I'm sure.
It's just really funny hearing you complain about facts, evidence, and support for an argument that's all. You have a history of not caring about evidence, that the entire world can be explained from your own back yard. When I provide links or examples of real, unequivocal evidence, you claim it's a conspiracy.

So the irony of you complaining about other people not supporting their argument is, well, funny.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 11:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
I understand that the law SAYS that they aren't eligible. The problem is that the law does not provide (and your quote does not show) ANY requirement to actually CHECK to see if the person in question IS eligible.
Do you really think the people who are giving out these loans illegally are going to change their behavior?
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
Wow...

When you fail, you're not afraid to do it big and bold.

I understand that the law SAYS that they aren't eligible. The problem is that the law does not provide (and your quote does not show) ANY requirement to actually CHECK to see if the person in question IS eligible.

Illegal aliens get federally backed home loans right now from US lending institutions even though their very existence here in the United States violates federal law. This occurs because there are no legal safeguards or checks in order to ensure that those receiving help are actually even eligible to reside in the United States.

Do you want to try again? I'm holding out hope that maybe there's a clause or phrase someone in the law that actually makes Joe Wilson a liar, because I can't believe that people would go to all this trouble when they don't have a leg to stand on.

My pets are qualified for health coverage under the HR3200 too. I know my pets are never mentioned, but there are no safeguards in placed that would prevent my pets from getting health coverage under the HR3200.

Find me any safeguards that verifies if the person/animal in question IS eligible.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 12:10 PM
 
Again, verification of immigration status exist in existing immigration bills.

Immigration and Nationality Act
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986


No Medicare, Welfare, Social Security, or Food Stamp Federal Bill ever mentions SAVE because it doesn't belong there. Because anything to do with verification of immigration status and guidelines for verification belongs in federal immigration bills. How logical is that?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 03:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by olePigeon View Post
Do you really think the people who are giving out these loans illegally are going to change their behavior?
I'm not sure it's really even illegal to give out the loans, because I'm assuming that like the way the health care bill was, that there are no safeguards and eligibility checks required from lending institutions based on citizenship.

That's why simply saying that illegal aliens can't take part in healthcare is meaningless and dishonest as far as whether or not they'd actually anything to stop them from taking advantage of it - since there wasn't.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 03:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
My pets are qualified for health coverage under the HR3200 too.
Possibly true if taken to an absurd degree, but I'm pretty sure when you go to the Doctor or Vet, and they know that they won't be able to send the bill to the Federal Government and get it paid, you aren't going to be able to get the services you desire. The same would not be true of illegal aliens who are not required to prove citizenship. They require the same types of healthcare as citizens, unlike animals, so your analogy fails.

..and you've STILL not shown any safeguards requiring checks (like there are with Medicaid) for citizenship in the law in question. Since you now know that there is none, when you claim Joe Wilson is a "liar", it is you who have proven themself to be a liar. HA!
( Last edited by stupendousman; Sep 18, 2009 at 03:46 PM. )
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 03:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
True, but I'm pretty sure when you go to the Doctor or Vet, and they know that they won't be able to send the bill to the Federal Government and get it paid, you aren't going to be able to get the services you desire. The same would not be true of illegal aliens who are not required to prove citizenship. They require the same types of healthcare as citizens, unlike animals, so your analogy fails.

..and you've STILL not shown any safeguards requiring checks (like there are with Medicaid) for citizenship in the law in question. Since you now know that there is none, when you claim Joe Wilson is a "liar", it is you who have proven themself to be a liar. HA!
What safeguards prevent my Vet from getting health coverage for my pets under HR3200.

Show me.

Who's enforcing it?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 03:45 PM
 
I think the case here is a difference of expectations with respect to the separation of powers. One side expects Congress to lay out specific safeguards and enforcement mechanisms. The other side is satisfied that Congress can lay out the letter of the law and the relevant federal agencies and departments in the executive branch will be obligated to develop mechanisms (regulations) to enforce and comply. In most cases, the latter is how the U.S. government operates. In other cases where the mechanism of enforcement itself is of great interest or policy relevance, Congress will go further into the weeds. The downside of doing so, however, is that the resulting law has a more limited shelf life, and federal agencies and departments have less flexibility to adapt their regulations to maintain compliance with the law if external circumstances change.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 04:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
I think the case here is a difference of expectations with respect to the separation of powers. One side expects Congress to lay out specific safeguards and enforcement mechanisms. The other side is satisfied that Congress can lay out the letter of the law and the relevant federal agencies and departments in the executive branch will be obligated to develop mechanisms (regulations) to enforce and comply. In most cases, the latter is how the U.S. government operates. In other cases where the mechanism of enforcement itself is of great interest or policy relevance, Congress will go further into the weeds. The downside of doing so, however, is that the resulting law has a more limited shelf life, and federal agencies and departments have less flexibility to adapt their regulations to maintain compliance with the law if external circumstances change.
Exactly!
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 08:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
What safeguards prevent my Vet from getting health coverage for my pets under HR3200.

Show me.

Who's enforcing it?
No additional "safeguards" or checks are needed to know if your dog can be covered. It only covers citizens, and simply via a visual examination it can be determined that your dog is not covered because animals cannot be citizens of the United States. Only humans can.

On the other hand, there is no way to perform a simple visual check to see if someone is a human citizen or not. Citizens of the United States all look a little different. There has to be additional safeguards and eligibility checks if you wish to ensure that only human CITIZENS get care.

Come on...this isn't rocket science.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 09:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No additional "safeguards" or checks are needed to know if your dog can be covered. It only covers citizens, and simply via a visual examination it can be determined that your dog is not covered because animals cannot be citizens of the United States. Only humans can.

On the other hand, there is no way to perform a simple visual check to see if someone is a human citizen or not. Citizens of the United States all look a little different. There has to be additional safeguards and eligibility checks if you wish to ensure that only human CITIZENS get care.

Come on...this isn't rocket science.
Wow. When you fail, you fail bad.

Who in government is going to check? Who in government is going to do a visual exam? Every patient is going to get a visual exam by our government to verify if the patient is human?

Where's the safeguard that requires a photo of the patient to be submitted to the government for verification?

Where is that stated in HR 3200 reform? Where do you find the safeguard "must have visual check to determine if patient is human"?

There is none. There is no safeguard that would prevent my pets from being covered by HR 3200.

Vet submits paperwork to government stating patient is a US citizen who had a medical procedure where keys were remove from stomach.

Again, show me the safeguard that prevents my pets from being covered by HR 3200?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 10:34 PM
 
just a thought:

a child is brought into the emergency room with life threatening injuries ...

do we really need to make sure the kid (or anyone) needs to show that they are a US citizen BEFORE we treat them?

And say, we find out the person is not of the United States... what do you recommend the doctors to do?

go ahead and trash me... but EXPLAIN your side... that's all
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2009, 10:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Where's the safeguard that requires a photo of the patient to be submitted to the government for verification?
That's where your ID cards, linked to a central database, will come in. Welcome to the slippery slope.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2009, 01:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Wow. When you fail, you fail bad.

Who in government is going to check? Who in government is going to do a visual exam? Every patient is going to get a visual exam by our government to verify if the patient is human?
No. Every patient is already given a visual once-over by the healthcare provider. If it's clear that the patient isn't human, then the health care provider knows that they are not covered

Where's the safeguard that requires a photo of the patient to be submitted to the government for verification?
There is none. Given that it's essentially impossible to mistake a human for a pet, there are no further checks for eligibility that could be reasonably applied or required.

Where is that stated in HR 3200 reform? Where do you find the safeguard "must have visual check to determine if patient is human"?
Every patient is visually seen by a health care provider. You can not provide health care to someone legally without seeing or talking to them. There are already laws on the books that require this standard regardless of who pays for the health care services.

Again, show me the safeguard that prevents my pets from being covered by HR 3200?
The one that requires citizenship. A health care provider can tell right off that a pet is not a citizen and therefore not give it care. They can't do that with an illegal alien, and unless they are required to check eligibility, there's no way for them to be sure.

A healthcare provider can be 100% sure without any additional effort that they are not caring for animals by simply doing their job. That isn't the case for illegal aliens, so I call BS on your trolling poor analogy.
     
stupendousman
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2009, 01:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by ironknee View Post
just a thought:

a child is brought into the emergency room with life threatening injuries ...

do we really need to make sure the kid (or anyone) needs to show that they are a US citizen BEFORE we treat them?

And say, we find out the person is not of the United States... what do you recommend the doctors to do?

go ahead and trash me... but EXPLAIN your side... that's all
I'm pretty sure it's already illegal to deny emergency medical attention to ANYONE who shows up at an emergency room, so this is pretty much already covered. e
     
TheWOAT
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2009, 02:11 AM
 
And thats why illegals fill up emergency rooms.
.......
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2009, 02:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by stupendousman View Post
No. Every patient is already given a visual once-over by the healthcare provider. If it's clear that the patient isn't human, then the health care provider knows that they are not covered

There is none. Given that it's essentially impossible to mistake a human for a pet, there are no further checks for eligibility that could be reasonably applied or required.

Every patient is visually seen by a health care provider. You can not provide health care to someone legally without seeing or talking to them. There are already laws on the books that require this standard regardless of who pays for the health care services.

The one that requires citizenship. A health care provider can tell right off that a pet is not a citizen and therefore not give it care. They can't do that with an illegal alien, and unless they are required to check eligibility, there's no way for them to be sure.

A healthcare provider can be 100% sure without any additional effort that they are not caring for animals by simply doing their job. That isn't the case for illegal aliens, so I call BS on your trolling poor analogy.

You are not answering the question.

My Vet know it's a dog. He's the one doing to operation on the dog. Oh course he knows it's a dog.

That wasn't the question or the issue here.

However, what prevents my Vet from getting the medical operation covered by HR 3200?

There are no safeguards. Nothing in the HR 3200 requires a pictures of the patient to be submitted for government approval. How would the government know it's a dog?


My Vet knows it's a dog. The government doesn't.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2009, 03:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
That's where your ID cards, linked to a central database, will come in. Welcome to the slippery slope.
Well, yeah. There's going to be a central database with all your medical database shared by all doctors in order to speed things and reduce the number of wasteful and duplicate test and exams.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:33 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,