Why does the Government insist upon demolishing a building that merely had a couple of leaks in the roof?
The very same...they have become hypocrites, and caricatures of themselves.Why does the Government insist upon demolishing a building that merely had a couple of leaks in the roof?
Because the goal is not to fix the building but to control the inhabitants
Indeed. The goal is absolute control. It's funny, but a friend of mine sent me a couple of lines from a song by a 60s band the other day and I was impressed that in the late 60s, the radical left accused the right of this - but now practices it en masse:
You're free to speak your mind my friend,
As long as you agree with me.
Don't criticize the Fatherland,
Or this who shape your destiny
'Cause if you do
You'll lose your job, your mind,
and all the friends you knew
We'll send out all our boys in blue
and they'll find a way
to silence you.
Strange how those same people who espoused "freedom" in the 60s are now the ones taking it away from usÂ…Â…..
Why does the Government insist upon demolishing a building that merely had a couple of leaks in the roof?
As a matter of course it is getting old...Look in a mirror lately? YOU are your own worst enemy. Go back and read your own damned posts son.
Really? Maybe the problem is that this statement was bassed on erroneous information?
... OR, that what he actually implied was that if you had a plain that was exeptable to the new law (the ACA) that you COULD keep it - not that you could keep a sub-standard plan.
You should not believe everything that the Democrats say. They are just as bad at lying as the Repubs are.
What sub-standard plans?
If you had all the coverage you needed at less cost per month and the deductibles were lower, then it's a good plan.
Now millions are losing those good health care plans.
It's not right that they have to lose their plans to insure the ones that don't have health insurance.
Son? Making excuses for it IS defending him. GO BACK and re-read your own damned posts. Are you that stupid?
Why does the Government insist upon demolishing a building that merely had a couple of leaks in the roof?
Franco doesn't see the irony, does he?
If 95 percent of the insured would not be affected by O-Care, then why was such a comprehensive piece of legislation pushed through at such great political cost, instead of something smaller which would address the problems of the small percentage of people in need of something better without spreading angst across the nation and polarizing us more than we already were?
Of course, more than 95 percent of the insured are affected by the ACA and 100% of America is affected by how it came into being. I'm just highlighting the logical and ideological problem in Franco's vision.
YOU know what you wrote, and IF you're depending upon me to show you your own words? YOU indeed are a typical lazy Liberal Statist.
Tipical ... YOU are the one making the claim - show me the post!
If you can't, then it's time to move on from this.
Probibly time to move on anyway and pick something that you can actually debate.
Why does the Government insist upon demolishing a building that merely had a couple of leaks in the roof?
Franco doesn't see the irony, does he?
If 95 percent of the insured would not be affected by O-Care, then why was such a comprehensive piece of legislation pushed through at such great political cost, instead of something smaller which would address the problems of the small percentage of people in need of something better without spreading angst across the nation and polarizing us more than we already were?
Of course, more than 95 percent of the insured are affected by the ACA and 100% of America is affected by how it came into being. I'm just highlighting the logical and ideological problem in Franco's vision.
Is that what they mean by "secular logic?"
So, incompetent by definition means that you must somehow be perfect or you are deemed incompetent?
Don't tell my boss that ... .
In lieu of actual examples, I would think that this is based entirely on opinion and not fact?
If you have a point, please make it. I have no idea why Kathleen Sebellius is some kind of human baromiter for Obama, care to clue me in?
Who ... me? I blamed someone else, or are you talking acout Obama who refused to fire her?
Either way, not sure if I understand you correctly.
Tipical ... YOU are the one making the claim - show me the post!
If you can't, then it's time to move on from this.
Probibly time to move on anyway and pick something that you can actually debate.
Of course, you forgot about the old straw man....
I never ment to imply that I really did not know; was asking, as a way of indicating that secular logic was being used as a rebuttle.
Tipical ... YOU are the one making the claim - show me the post!
If you can't, then it's time to move on from this.
Probibly time to move on anyway and pick something that you can actua
Tipical ... YOU are the one making the claim - show me the post!
If you can't, then it's time to move on from this.
Tipical ... YOU are the one making the claim - show me the post!
If you can't, then it's time to move on from this.
Probibly time to move on anyway and pick something that you can actually debate.
Tipical ... YOU are the one making the claim - show me the post!
If you can't, then it's time to move on from this.
Probibly time to move on anyway and pick something that you can actually debate.
Probibly time to move on anyway and pick something that you can actually debate.lly debate.
Of course, when the whole definition of "lying" got scewed, I should not have expected that one to fly either.
If you have a point, please make it. I have no idea why Kathleen Sebellius is some kind of human baromiter for Obama, care to clue me in?
Thanks, I'll work on it.
Now, back to my original post, I offered up a definition of lying as intent to decieve ... can you offer a valid rebuttle to my point?
I'm not saying that Obama DID NOT LIE, only what lying was.
Really? Maybe the problem is that this statement was bassed on erroneous information?
... OR, that what he actually implied was that if you had a plain that was exeptable to the new law (the ACA) that you COULD keep it - not that you could keep a sub-standard plan.
Did he intentionally lie? Does he do it now because he is attempting to cover up for being wrong? I really don't know the answer to this and I am attempting to understand it.
Because it, as of yet, has not been addressed.
Doesn't change a thing. And NO you do not get back in my good graces. Nice try, I'll give YOU that much.
Um ... here you go:
Is that what they mean by "secular logic?"
So, incompetent by definition means that you must somehow be perfect or you are deemed incompetent?
Don't tell my boss that ... .
In lieu of actual examples, I would think that this is based entirely on opinion and not fact?
If you have a point, please make it. I have no idea why Kathleen Sebellius is some kind of human baromiter for Obama, care to clue me in?
Who ... me? I blamed someone else, or are you talking acout Obama who refused to fire her?
Either way, not sure if I understand you correctly.
Tipical ... YOU are the one making the claim - show me the post!
If you can't, then it's time to move on from this.
Probibly time to move on anyway and pick something that you can actually debate.
Of course, you forgot about the old straw man....
I never ment to imply that I really did not know; was asking, as a way of indicating that secular logic was being used as a rebuttle.
Tipical ... YOU are the one making the claim - show me the post!
If you can't, then it's time to move on from this.
Probibly time to move on anyway and pick something that you can actua
Tipical ... YOU are the one making the claim - show me the post!
If you can't, then it's time to move on from this.
Tipical ... YOU are the one making the claim - show me the post!
If you can't, then it's time to move on from this.
Probibly time to move on anyway and pick something that you can actually debate.
Tipical ... YOU are the one making the claim - show me the post!
If you can't, then it's time to move on from this.
Probibly time to move on anyway and pick something that you can actually debate.
Probibly time to move on anyway and pick something that you can actually debate.lly debate.
Of course, when the whole definition of "lying" got scewed, I should not have expected that one to fly either.
If you have a point, please make it. I have no idea why Kathleen Sebellius is some kind of human baromiter for Obama, care to clue me in?
Thanks, I'll work on it.
Now, back to my original post, I offered up a definition of lying as intent to decieve ... can you offer a valid rebuttle to my point?
I'm not saying that Obama DID NOT LIE, only what lying was.
Really? Maybe the problem is that this statement was bassed on erroneous information?
... OR, that what he actually implied was that if you had a plain that was exeptable to the new law (the ACA) that you COULD keep it - not that you could keep a sub-standard plan.
Did he intentionally lie? Does he do it now because he is attempting to cover up for being wrong? I really don't know the answer to this and I am attempting to understand it.
Because it, as of yet, has not been addressed.
^^^^ Defending Obama!
Now, enough of this crap - you aren't in my leauge and you just got your ass handed to you. Think about that next time you are foolish enough to take on the Cabbie.
Bye!
Why does the Government insist upon demolishing a building that merely had a couple of leaks in the roof?
Franco doesn't see the irony, does he?
If 95 percent of the insured would not be affected by O-Care, then why was such a comprehensive piece of legislation pushed through at such great political cost, instead of something smaller which would address the problems of the small percentage of people in need of something better without spreading angst across the nation and polarizing us more than we already were?
Of course, more than 95 percent of the insured are affected by the ACA and 100% of America is affected by how it came into being. I'm just highlighting the logical and ideological problem in Franco's vision.
Franco is an unthinking shill...probably paid to stick to talking points that change faster than he can parrot them.
