[Jenn[_2_]]

In article
,
ScottW2 wrote:

On Aug 8, 5:21*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,





*ScottW2 wrote:
On Aug 8, 2:08*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
,

*ScottW2 wrote:
On Aug 8, 1:16*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Aug 7, 7:42*pm, Jenn wrote:

In article

,

*ScottW2 wrote:
On Aug 7, 4:18*pm, Jenn wrote:
In article
.
com
,

*ScottW wrote:
"We¹ve hired skilled grassroots organizers who are working
with
thousands of local volunteers to show Congress that
ordinary
Americans
continue to support President Obama¹s agenda for change.
And
we¹re
building new online tools to track events across the
country
and
make
sure MoveOn members turn out at each one."

From:

ScottW

Good.

*Democracy according to Jenn, whoever can muster the biggest
crowd
of
thugs wins.

ScottW

Not at all. *But it's noted that when it was only the thugs that
you
agree with, it was OK.

Those weren't "thugs". They were simply conservative citizens
expressing their displeasure.

When liberals build support at the grassroots level, why that's
out-
and-out thuggery.

*Why is it when the dems tell the SEIU to jump, they ask how high?

Why is the SEIU, which is clearly biased in the debate,
"sponsoring" townhall meetings like Carnahan's in St. Louis?

Why are so many who are supporting the disruptions telling lies like
this?http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32337941*see 5:36 for
example

I'm surprised you didn't pick on the chick from Greenbay who is
accused of lying about her party affiliation. *Rachel Maddox

Moddow

is an
interesting listen and I like to bounce from her to Hannity for
contrast. *Both are grossly biased

True

and extremely guilty of advocating
an agenda and using selective reporting to support it.
In a world of so many people you can find someone/somewhere saying or
doing something that can substantiate a point. You can even find a
stupid congressperson saying something on occassion.

The difference is that I've never heard Rachel lie. *Can you point out a
time that she has lied?

She's claimed that all the protests at town hall meetings are
republican and insurance co. conspired. That's BS and you
know it.

She did? Cite?




Anyway, with regard to comment that people will die. *How can you
claim these are lies?

Let's stop here and have you state which speaker you are referring to.

I'm referring to the segment you flagged as a lie in the first Rachel
link.
I can't get it to replay right now.

The Rep. said that "seniors will be put in a position of being put to
death by their government". Care to defend that?






*I here the counter argument that evil insurance
companies kill people today with denial of coverage claims. *Do you
think Obamacare is going to fix that?
You simply can't know what exactly will happen because the decisions
for what will be covered and how care will be managed will be
delegated to some committee responsible for maintaining costs. It
isn't in the bill in sufficient detail to know at this point.

There are lots of examples where people with some medical conditions
are allowed to die under the social programs of other countries.
Here's an example in Britain.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-survival-rat...
in-Europe.html

His co-researcher, Prof Ian Kunkler from the Western General Hospital
in Edinburgh, said waiting lists for radiotherapy were partly to
blame.

"Although there has been a substantial investment in radiotherapy
facilities, there is still a shortfall," he said.

"We have good evidence that survival for lung cancer has been
compromised by long waiting lists for radiotherapy treatment."

Here's an aricle on a denial for life pro-longing breast cancer drugs.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...prolonging-can...
-banned-cost-much.html

Cool. *If you believe that this will be the case under the plan, simply
stay with your insurance company.

Won't be an option for me in early retirement. And there are many
widely discussed provisions in some proposals that don't allow
any changes. The second you or your insurance want to change
anything in your existing coverage, you have to move to a gov't
approved plan.

Cite?

Again, it remains to be determined exactly
what will be in the final bill. I hope we get time to find out
and voice our opinion before the final vote.
The other issue is that health providers use private insurance
as the profit source while gov't programs underpay.
The numbers are going to shift and it's unclear how that delicate
balance is going to leave private insurance affordable for anyone.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32337676*see 1:53 for more lies

*A bunch of crap I don't support. *But painting all the opposition
with the same brush is equally a bunch of crap.

I'm not doing that. *Note that I said "so many".

Rachel does.

Cite? Plus, weren't you the one who said that, "The gays act..."? Why
yes, you were.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Somebody is STILL trying to have a human-style discussion with Scottie the
Rabid Pooch.

The difference is that I've never heard Rachel lie. *Can you point out a
time that she has lied?

She's claimed that all the protests at town hall meetings are
republican and insurance co. conspired. That's BS and you
know it.

She did? Cite?

Point of order: It's not "BS". There's a clear trail of public evidence
showing that the ****uplicans are urging their faithful marching morons to
disrupt town hall meetings for the sake of politics. Whether the vested
interests in the health care industry are involved is murkier, but with so
many rumors flying, it's hard to discount the possibility out of hand. Or at
least it's hard if you are capable of using human logic.