I give you ...Exhibit A

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ I give you ...Exhibit A
bases_loaded's avatar

bases_loaded

Senior Member

6,912 posts
Sep 15, 2012 3:29 PM
[h=6]Jennifer Marie Dervin
[/h][h=6]Yes Romney lets take away our birth control, which will lead to millions and millions of families with kids that maybe they can't provide for because they didnt plan on getting pregnant. Ya that will help the economy big time Romney. I can just see it now...kids walking around like a lost puppy. For a family that knows they don't have the needs to provide that is what will happen to everyone. Then there will be no America left. Please reconsider democrat, republicans.....

Her vote counts as much as mine :-(
[/h]
Sep 15, 2012 3:29pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Sep 15, 2012 4:09 PM
Ah, you gotta love listening to the idiots on all sides.
Sep 15, 2012 4:09pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Sep 15, 2012 5:13 PM
Such stupidity. Where is Romney trying to take away birth control?
Sep 15, 2012 5:13pm
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Sep 16, 2012 1:35 AM
Oh, don't worry. He'll do that and much more. Like everything else in his 59,000-part plan, he can't be bothered to show you the details. Just trust him and he will reveal everything on January 21, 2013. That is, once he has a chance to meet with his handlers/advisers and find out what it is they want him to do.
Sep 16, 2012 1:35am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Sep 16, 2012 2:59 AM
Well, I've seen Obama's plan, and it's failure. Probably why he is trying to make this about what Obama TOLD you he would do and what Obama THINKS Romney would do.

Seriously, honestly ask yourself if Obama wasn't black would you vote for him?
Sep 16, 2012 2:59am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Sep 16, 2012 7:55 PM
stlouiedipalma;1272430 wrote:Oh, don't worry. He'll do that and much more. Like everything else in his 59,000-part plan, he can't be bothered to show you the details. Just trust him and he will reveal everything on January 21, 2013. That is, once he has a chance to meet with his handlers/advisers and find out what it is they want him to do.
If you truly believe that Romney is trying to get rid of BC, then you are one of the most retarded posters on here. Worse than Isadore, and that is saying a lot.
Sep 16, 2012 7:55pm
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Sep 17, 2012 9:14 AM
I think Stlouie provided "Exhibit B":o
Sep 17, 2012 9:14am
Belly35's avatar

Belly35

Elderly Intellectual

9,716 posts
Sep 17, 2012 9:40 AM
stlouiedipalma;1272430 wrote:Oh, don't worry. He'll do that and much more. Like everything else in his 59,000-part plan, he can't be bothered to show you the details. Just trust him and he will reveal everything on January 21, 2013. That is, once he has a chance to meet with his handlers/advisers and find out what it is they want him to do.

stlouiedipalma and pelosi think a like

Sep 17, 2012 9:40am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Sep 17, 2012 10:20 AM
stlouiedipalma;1272430 wrote:Oh, don't worry. He'll do that and much more. Like everything else in his 59,000-part plan, he can't be bothered to show you the details. Just trust him and he will reveal everything on January 21, 2013. That is, once he has a chance to meet with his handlers/advisers and find out what it is they want him to do.
Kind of like when Pelosi said that they had to pass Obamacare to see what's in it?
Sep 17, 2012 10:20am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Sep 17, 2012 10:27 AM
stlouiedipalma;1272430 wrote:Oh, don't worry. He'll do that and much more.
You have no idea how much you sound like those who used to say that Obama was going to take their guns away.

Is that what you're trying to sound like?
Sep 17, 2012 10:27am
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Sep 17, 2012 12:52 PM
gut;1272452 wrote:Well, I've seen Obama's plan, and it's failure. Probably why he is trying to make this about what Obama TOLD you he would do and what Obama THINKS Romney would do. Everything Romney talks about is vague. He hasn't provided any details on how he wants to accomplish anything.

Seriously, honestly ask yourself if Obama wasn't black would you vote for him?
Of course I would. I voted for him in 2008 because John McCain didn't have a clue. Romney, quite frankly, scares the hell out of me because of who is pulling his strings. We saw eight years of that neo-con bullshit and what do we have to show for it, besides so many of our best and brightest dead on the battlefield?
O-Trap;1273368 wrote:You have no idea how much you sound like those who used to say that Obama was going to take their guns away.

Is that what you're trying to sound like?
I'd like to think that, while I do embrace some beliefs that aren't popular with others here, my beliefs are bolstered by what I see and read rather than hysteria.
Sep 17, 2012 12:52pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Sep 17, 2012 1:14 PM
stlouiedipalma;1273471 wrote:I'd like to think that, while I do embrace some beliefs that aren't popular with others here, my beliefs are bolstered by what I see and read rather than hysteria.
The paranoid gun nuts would say the same thing. They base things off what they see and read as well, but they're reading pieces that look for what isn't there, and what they see is tainted, because they themselves are looking for what isn't there. They'll see what they want to see and read what they want to read.

As, apparently, will you.

If you honestly think Mitt Romney would take away birth control, you're every bit the out-of-touch political talking head as those who ever accused President Obama of wanting to take away guns.
Sep 17, 2012 1:14pm
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Sep 17, 2012 1:22 PM
You ignored the basic question though, do you truly believe Romney is going to take away, or wants to take away, BC pills?
Sep 17, 2012 1:22pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Sep 17, 2012 1:30 PM
stlouiedipalma;1273471 wrote:Wow, I've gone over the top in the past but I can't recall ever using the word "retarded" to describe anyone here. I learned 20 years ago that the word "retarded" is considered offensive to those who have disabled or mentally challenged children. I try not to use that word and I would appreciate it if you would do likewise. My sense of compassion keeps me from filing a formal protest with the mods on your violation.
As I recall, the word "retarded" is not the word that describes someone with mental disabilities. As such, it currently seems to bear no connection to the disabled. So I see no reason for it to offend them unless it becomes a derogatory term to say someone has a disability. As it currently is, I tend to hear it used to describe someone doing or saying something that is generally stupid, but not the result of a developmental challenge.

In my personal opinion, there is nothing wrong with the colloquial use of the term.

As for the rules here, it's not against them, no matter what my feelings are on it.
Sep 17, 2012 1:30pm
LJ's avatar

LJ

Senior Member

16,351 posts
Sep 18, 2012 7:30 AM
It is against the rules in this forum
No personal attacks (including name calling) on other posters.
The posts have been removed
Sep 18, 2012 7:30am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Sep 18, 2012 8:19 AM
jmog;1273363 wrote:Kind of like when Pelosi said that they had to pass Obamacare to see what's in it?
She said that in reference to the massive lies and distortions conservatives made regarding the bill ("government takeover" "Death Panels") as in that we would see that such nonsense was not true once it when into effect...
Sep 18, 2012 8:19am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Sep 18, 2012 10:32 AM
BoatShoes;1273964 wrote:She said that in reference to the massive lies and distortions conservatives made regarding the bill ("government takeover" "Death Panels") as in that we would see that such nonsense was not true once it when into effect...
Oh come on BS, you might pull a muscle if you stretch that far.

Next are you going to tell me that all of those that voted on the bill read the whole thing?
Sep 18, 2012 10:32am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Sep 18, 2012 10:45 AM
BoatShoes;1273964 wrote:She said that in reference to the massive lies and distortions conservatives made regarding the bill ("government takeover" "Death Panels") as in that we would see that such nonsense was not true once it when into effect...
Actually, the proper defense would be to cite the bill and show that it did not contain such language. The proper defense is NOT "pass it and you'll see."
Sep 18, 2012 10:45am
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Sep 19, 2012 6:36 AM
jmog;1274072 wrote:Oh come on BS, you might pull a muscle if you stretch that far.

Next are you going to tell me that all of those that voted on the bill read the whole thing?
Not until they passed it....and even then probably not.
Sep 19, 2012 6:36am
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Sep 19, 2012 7:07 AM
O-Trap;1274085 wrote:Actually, the proper defense would be to cite the bill and show that it did not contain such language. The proper defense is NOT "pass it and you'll see."
Well having read a fair amount of statutory language containing declarative commands, I doubt doing so to the press corps in attempt to dispute distortions would be very effective. For instance, saying, "section 1000(b)(8)(A) authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to create a Medicare Payment Advisory Board.....etc." An in depth factual attack with the statutory language is not going to defeat the false assertion that this panel is a "death panel."

In fact, that's why she said what she said...democrats had spent considerable time combating these false claims and then in exasperation you say, along the lines, "Well, when the bill gets passed we'll see what's actually in it."
Sep 19, 2012 7:07am
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Sep 19, 2012 8:16 AM
BoatShoes;1274776 wrote:
In fact, that's why she said what she said...democrats had spent considerable time combating these false claims and then in exasperation you say, along the lines, "Well, when the bill gets passed we'll see what's actually in it."
Such a stretch, you even have to know that you are stretching what really happened so far to make Pelosi's statement NOT look crazy.
Sep 19, 2012 8:16am
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Sep 19, 2012 8:38 AM
BoatShoes;1274776 wrote:Well having read a fair amount of statutory language containing declarative commands, I doubt doing so to the press corps in attempt to dispute distortions would be very effective. For instance, saying, "section 1000(b)(8)(A) authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to create a Medicare Payment Advisory Board.....etc." An in depth factual attack with the statutory language is not going to defeat the false assertion that this panel is a "death panel."

In fact, that's why she said what she said...democrats had spent considerable time combating these false claims and then in exasperation you say, along the lines, "Well, when the bill gets passed we'll see what's actually in it."
Dude. Not your best work. :rolleyes:
Sep 19, 2012 8:38am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Sep 19, 2012 11:40 AM
BoatShoes;1274776 wrote:Well having read a fair amount of statutory language containing declarative commands, I doubt doing so to the press corps in attempt to dispute distortions would be very effective. For instance, saying, "section 1000(b)(8)(A) authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to create a Medicare Payment Advisory Board.....etc." An in depth factual attack with the statutory language is not going to defeat the false assertion that this panel is a "death panel."

In fact, that's why she said what she said...democrats had spent considerable time combating these false claims and then in exasperation you say, along the lines, "Well, when the bill gets passed we'll see what's actually in it."
Whether out of exasperation or not, that still cannot be the attitude.

New legislation OUGHT to be a careful, tedious process where each bill is painstakingly scrutinized.

If there exists some problem with the statutory language, such that it allows for the notion of "death panels," then the language needs revised to distinguish the functionality between the two and to ensure that the latter cannot happen.

If you hand in an article for a journal, and the article leaves loose ends, you don't publish the loose ends. You revise the article so that it ties them up. A bill should function in the same way.
Sep 19, 2012 11:40am
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Sep 19, 2012 5:46 PM
O-Trap;1275003 wrote:New legislation OUGHT to be a careful, tedious process where each bill is painstakingly scrutinized.
Naw...That requires time and effort. It's far more expedient to pass legislation - especially bad legislation - before reviewing the possible negative ramifications.

After all, we certainly need a "do something" Congress.
Sep 19, 2012 5:46pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Sep 19, 2012 5:51 PM
believer;1275308 wrote:Naw...That requires time and effort. It's far more expedient to pass legislation - especially bad legislation - before reviewing the possible negative ramifications.

After all, we certainly need a "do something" Congress.
'Tis better to do nothing than to do something that leaves you in a worse position. I'd rather my boys at the youth center sit and watch television for hours than go out and deal drugs. Neither is ideal, but one is still better than the other.

Ultimately, though, painstakingly going over legislation is indeed doing something. It's just doing something that requires an attention span and some level of critical thinking.
Sep 19, 2012 5:51pm