eavesdropping on obamacare

[MeBelle]

Just claiming that you are being "polite" does not excuse you.


I am directing my posts at people who can think beyond a bumper sticker mentality. My claim in my response is that right wingers do not typically give a shit about the people they cite when they attack Obama. Benghazi is another example of right wingers claiming to care about the victims when in reality they just want to attack Obama. I used the Iraq war as an example of right wingers not wanting investigation when there was a republican president. I would apologize but I since this is a political discussion forum, I giving everybody credit and assuming they are up on politics from the past few years. Could you "politely" discontinue your fascination with me now?

The only fascination I hold for your posts is the continued fabrication of events that have nothing to do with this forum.

I will continue to point out your hypocrisy; politely of course.

 

[bluesman]

Just claiming that you are being "polite" does not excuse you.


I am directing my posts at people who can think beyond a bumper sticker mentality. My claim in my response is that right wingers do not typically give a shit about the people they cite when they attack Obama. Benghazi is another example of right wingers claiming to care about the victims when in reality they just want to attack Obama. I used the Iraq war as an example of right wingers not wanting investigation when there was a republican president. I would apologize but I since this is a political discussion forum, I giving everybody credit and assuming they are up on politics from the past few years. Could you "politely" discontinue your fascination with me now?

The only fascination I hold for your posts is the continued fabrication of events that have nothing to do with this forum.

I will continue to point out your hypocrisy; politely of course.

So while you remind "politely" remind me of the forum rules and staying on topic, you are going to continue to focus on me personally?


The fact remains. My point, which anybody with basic reading comprehension skills already would know, was that using a hearsay story instead of posting a link is not a good subject for a debate. It will however, suffice as fodder for the Obama-haters who only want to attack Obama but don't care about real world things like prescription costs and insurance deductibles. The kinds of thins an objective insurance expert would consider.

"I heard" someone call Sarah Palin an "Idiot". However, If I want to post about Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, or any other republican hero, I can find plenty of credible sources on the internet to back up what I am saying.

 

[william the wie]

Dude or dudette if a mod decides to join this thread you will almost certainly be reported and banned. that is a personal problem. My problem with your stupidity is that some of my friends could be spanked for quoting you and I may be in some limited trouble for quoting someone else quoting you to warn her off of further possible rule violations.

 

[bluesman]

Oh what a shocker. Fox News attacks Obamacare. I guess that settles it.

you do know it is against the rules to edit others posts dont you?

Don't confuse him, her or it with facts or mention that the same information is available in even liberal news outlets such as Yahoo finance, CNBC and Bloomberg, which on anything non-stock related are somewhat to the left of Trotsky. You just have to go to archives in their cases because they don't like to criticize that moderate conservative, dear leader Obama.

If you have something on-top to say then I invite you to not focus on me. If you want to attack what I am saying, the do it directly. Otherwise, you are stumped. I am saying that it is chicken-shit to use hearsay examples to attack Obamacare. If you disagree then say so.

 

[bluesman]

Dude or dudette if a mod decides to join this thread you will almost certainly be reported and banned. that is a personal problem. My problem with your stupidity is that some of my friends could be spanked for quoting you and I may be in some limited trouble for quoting someone else quoting you to warn her off of further possible rule violations.

If you are worried about the rules then quit with the off topic bullshit. If you have something personal to say to me, then send a PM and I will politely put you on ignore.

Translation: I don't give a shit about your personal attacks. If you cannot attack what I am saying then you are stumped and need to move on.

 

[bluesman]

Folks, let's try and get back on topic.

I now have 15 posts so I will be able to post a link:

Update: Julie Boonstra?s claim her Obamacare plan is ?unaffordable? gets downgraded to Three Pinocchios

The link above refers to an ad made by "Americans for Prosperity". You can do research and see how it was proven to be a bogus attack on Obamacare. They used the lady by pretending that they cared about her but instead they just wanted to attack Obamacare. It was proven fraudulent.

Now that attacks like that have failed, we are seeing examples like the one contained in the Opening Post for this thread. The attack is based on what someone claims to have "overheard". If that is all the proof that someone needs, then they aren't looking for proof. I am calling the tactic what it is. A tactic. The thing is that when you have facts on your side, you don't have to resort to tactics.

 

[MeBelle]

Just claiming that you are being "polite" does not excuse you.


I am directing my posts at people who can think beyond a bumper sticker mentality. My claim in my response is that right wingers do not typically give a shit about the people they cite when they attack Obama. Benghazi is another example of right wingers claiming to care about the victims when in reality they just want to attack Obama. I used the Iraq war as an example of right wingers not wanting investigation when there was a republican president. I would apologize but I since this is a political discussion forum, I giving everybody credit and assuming they are up on politics from the past few years. Could you "politely" discontinue your fascination with me now?

The only fascination I hold for your posts is the continued fabrication of events that have nothing to do with this forum.

I will continue to point out your hypocrisy; politely of course.

So while you remind "politely" remind me of the forum rules and staying on topic, you are going to continue to focus on me personally?


The fact remains. My point, which anybody with basic reading comprehension skills already would know, was that using a hearsay story instead of posting a link is not a good subject for a debate. It will however, suffice as fodder for the Obama-haters who only want to attack Obama but don't care about real world things like prescription costs and insurance deductibles. The kinds of thins an objective insurance expert would consider.

"I heard" someone call Sarah Palin an "Idiot". However, If I want to post about Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, or any other republican hero, I can find plenty of credible sources on the internet to back up what I am saying.

As long as you focus on 'Obama-haters', Benghazi, claim that anyone posting in this forum are 'right wingers', the Iraq war, and all the things I bolded in your post, are not a 'personal attack'.

Posters are posting here for a reason....wait until I tell a few 'nutters' (their words, not mine) they are responsible for everything you claim!

PS- If everyone posting in this forum were 'Obama-haters' (your words), you'd be sporting red splats.

Take your political talking points to the correct forum.

I'll also politely pass on your obvious "anybody with basic reading comprehension skills already would know" spelling/grammar, etc, which you have posted.

TIA

 

[MeBelle]

you do know it is against the rules to edit others posts dont you?

Don't confuse him, her or it with facts or mention that the same information is available in even liberal news outlets such as Yahoo finance, CNBC and Bloomberg, which on anything non-stock related are somewhat to the left of Trotsky. You just have to go to archives in their cases because they don't like to criticize that moderate conservative, dear leader Obama.

If you have something on-top to say then I invite you to not focus on me. If you want to attack what I am saying, the do it directly. Otherwise, you are stumped. I am saying that it is chicken-shit to use hearsay examples to attack Obamacare. If you disagree then say so.

Ummmmm, many of us did just that!!

Oh yes...strawman included in your posts.

Dude or dudette if a mod decides to join this thread you will almost certainly be reported and banned. that is a personal problem. My problem with your stupidity is that some of my friends could be spanked for quoting you and I may be in some limited trouble for quoting someone else quoting you to warn her off of further possible rule violations.

If you are worried about the rules then quit with the off topic bullshit. If you have something personal to say to me, then send a PM and I will politely put you on ignore.

Translation: I don't give a shit about your personal attacks. If you cannot attack what I am saying then you are stumped and need to move on.

You are off topic!

Folks, let's try and get back on topic.

I now have 15 posts so I will be able to post a link:

Update: Julie Boonstra?s claim her Obamacare plan is ?unaffordable? gets downgraded to Three Pinocchios

The link above refers to an ad made by "Americans for Prosperity". You can do research and see how it was proven to be a bogus attack on Obamacare. They used the lady by pretending that they cared about her but instead they just wanted to attack Obamacare. It was proven fraudulent.

Now that attacks like that have failed, we are seeing examples like the one contained in the Opening Post for this thread. The attack is based on what someone claims to have "overheard". If that is all the proof that someone needs, then they aren't looking for proof. I am calling the tactic what it is. A tactic. The thing is that when you have facts on your side, you don't have to resort to tactics.

Topic already posted to death.

I'm very concerned you continue to use the word 'attack'.


Kerry on!

 

[Politico]

Sitting in the hospital yesterday i was party to an interesting conversation.....

My friend was put into a semi private room for his test out of the ER...... they usually put people with the same kind of issues in the same room for hospital convenience. I was there most of the day....and it is impossible NOT hear what his roommate and visitors are talking about.....


The roommate has cancer. It was very obvious that he had had this problem for a long time. He and his visitor were discussing his new covered California insurance (obamacare)... and what his portion of payment for one drug that was prescribed him was going to cost him.

He was PISSED... kept saying to his visitor.... this CANT be right... it just cant be! I paid almost nothing for the drugs before I got the new insurance!!!! I thought this whole thing (obamacare) was to bring the costs down!!!!!!

He calls someone..... asking about the price of this drug, who ordered the drug, he never paid so much for it before..... and were they sure HIS portion of the cost of the drug was going to be......

Nine... Thousand...Dollars???!!!???


My friend and i just looked at each other in amazement.... welcome to obamacare.

So instead of coming up with something that can be objectively reviewed, you are interjecting something you "overheard". This is a typical Obama-hater tactic.

Last time i checked that's all any of yous do on the internets.

That aside there is no need for review whatever the hell that means. This stuff is happening and you know it so spare us the goosestepping.

 

[hjmick]

So instead of coming up with something that can be objectively reviewed, you are interjecting something you "overheard". This is a typical Obama-hater tactic.

She was sitting with her friend in the hospital. She's supposed to request documentation and scan it for the forum?

No. Besides the fact that she shouldn't be eavesdropping on people going through cancer treatment which is beyond disrespectful, it isn't really valid to use unsubstantiated hearsay as an argument against Obamacare. There is no way to objectively review the facts. It works well for subjective Obama-hate but not so much for those of us who prefer keeping it real. If a person hates Obama, that is their right. My opinion is that most people who hate Obamacare really just hate Obama. Same thing with Benghazi. They don't give a damn about the four dead Americans, they just want to capitalize on the situation as a way to attack Obama. Since this is a discussion forum, I think it is fair to ask for more than something that someone "heard". Links and sources are much more credible.

Lighten up, Francis.

You're still new, you have plenty of time to look like an ass. Don't shoot your load all in one day...

 

[MeBelle]

Lighten up, Francis.

You're still new, you have plenty of time to look like an ass. Don't shoot your load all in one day...

 

[bluesman]

Don't confuse him, her or it with facts or mention that the same information is available in even liberal news outlets such as Yahoo finance, CNBC and Bloomberg, which on anything non-stock related are somewhat to the left of Trotsky. You just have to go to archives in their cases because they don't like to criticize that moderate conservative, dear leader Obama.

If you have something on-top to say then I invite you to not focus on me. If you want to attack what I am saying, the do it directly. Otherwise, you are stumped. I am saying that it is chicken-shit to use hearsay examples to attack Obamacare. If you disagree then say so.

Ummmmm, many of us did just that!!

Oh yes...strawman included in your posts.

If you are worried about the rules then quit with the off topic bullshit. If you have something personal to say to me, then send a PM and I will politely put you on ignore.

Translation: I don't give a shit about your personal attacks. If you cannot attack what I am saying then you are stumped and need to move on.

You are off topic!

Folks, let's try and get back on topic.

I now have 15 posts so I will be able to post a link:

Update: Julie Boonstra?s claim her Obamacare plan is ?unaffordable? gets downgraded to Three Pinocchios

The link above refers to an ad made by "Americans for Prosperity". You can do research and see how it was proven to be a bogus attack on Obamacare. They used the lady by pretending that they cared about her but instead they just wanted to attack Obamacare. It was proven fraudulent.

Now that attacks like that have failed, we are seeing examples like the one contained in the Opening Post for this thread. The attack is based on what someone claims to have "overheard". If that is all the proof that someone needs, then they aren't looking for proof. I am calling the tactic what it is. A tactic. The thing is that when you have facts on your side, you don't have to resort to tactics.

Topic already posted to death.

I'm very concerned you continue to use the word 'attack'.


Kerry on!

Good. If was already proven bogus, then you should realize how important sources and links are. You should get it that posting what someone "overheard" doesn't cut it unless the reader is a Ideologue who will accept any anti-Obama talk at face value.

 

[bluesman]

She was sitting with her friend in the hospital. She's supposed to request documentation and scan it for the forum?

No. Besides the fact that she shouldn't be eavesdropping on people going through cancer treatment which is beyond disrespectful, it isn't really valid to use unsubstantiated hearsay as an argument against Obamacare. There is no way to objectively review the facts. It works well for subjective Obama-hate but not so much for those of us who prefer keeping it real. If a person hates Obama, that is their right. My opinion is that most people who hate Obamacare really just hate Obama. Same thing with Benghazi. They don't give a damn about the four dead Americans, they just want to capitalize on the situation as a way to attack Obama. Since this is a discussion forum, I think it is fair to ask for more than something that someone "heard". Links and sources are much more credible.

Lighten up, Francis.

You're still new, you have plenty of time to look like an ass. Don't shoot your load all in one day...

That is seriously all you bring to the discussion? I guess that means you are conceding every point I made and the only thing you have is to call me "Francis". That is tremendously weak.

 

[william the wie]

Bluesman I hereby anoint you dumber than TM and I didn't think that possible.

 

[hjmick]

No. Besides the fact that she shouldn't be eavesdropping on people going through cancer treatment which is beyond disrespectful, it isn't really valid to use unsubstantiated hearsay as an argument against Obamacare. There is no way to objectively review the facts. It works well for subjective Obama-hate but not so much for those of us who prefer keeping it real. If a person hates Obama, that is their right. My opinion is that most people who hate Obamacare really just hate Obama. Same thing with Benghazi. They don't give a damn about the four dead Americans, they just want to capitalize on the situation as a way to attack Obama. Since this is a discussion forum, I think it is fair to ask for more than something that someone "heard". Links and sources are much more credible.

Lighten up, Francis.

You're still new, you have plenty of time to look like an ass. Don't shoot your load all in one day...

That is seriously all you bring to the discussion? I guess that means you are conceding every point I made and the only thing you have is to call me "Francis". That is tremendously weak.

You had points? Who knew!

 

[bluesman]

Lighten up, Francis.

You're still new, you have plenty of time to look like an ass. Don't shoot your load all in one day...

That is seriously all you bring to the discussion? I guess that means you are conceding every point I made and the only thing you have is to call me "Francis". That is tremendously weak.

You had points? Who knew!

Two posts, two personal attacks. Is that what you are all about?

 

[bluesman]

Bluesman I hereby anoint you dumber than TM and I didn't think that possible.

All that and you still haven't included one on-topic phrase?

I am new here. Is this how it works? A bunch of bullshit and no content?

 

[MeBelle]

Lighten up, Francis.

You're still new, you have plenty of time to look like an ass. Don't shoot your load all in one day...

Swiped and sent to the FZ! Yer da bom [MENTION=4791]hjmick[/MENTION]

 

[Dot Com]

miss white oprah steps out of the tavern to post a thread and what is the gist of it? An (supposed) anecdotal rw partisan hack thread.

 

[MeBelle]

Bluesman I hereby anoint you dumber than TM and I didn't think that possible.

Paid shill!