Originally posted by WajomaI just gave you an example. How would they have voted on the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991?
The principles of self ownership, the right to life, liberty and private property, the concept of limited guvamint can be applied to any situation.
Give us an example (and NO, I am not going to read another 500 pages of bureaRatic bs) and I'll have a crack at it.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYou claim to know better than doctors about the healthcare bill, you claim that they should get lawyers to read the bill for them, lawyers that you don't need yourself because one would assume you credit yourself with superior comprehension skills, yet you can't understand this?
I just gave you an example. How would they have voted on the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991?
The principles of self ownership, the right to life, liberty and private property, the concept of limited guvamint can be applied to any situation.
Give us an example (and NO, I am not going to read another 500 pages of bureaRatic bs) and I'll have a crack at it.
You're so in love with the sound of your own keyboard going ticker tacker that you don't realise what you expose of yourself.
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaAh, yes. Nothing like broad sweeping examples of strawman.
You claim to know better than doctors about the healthcare bill, you claim that they should get lawyers to read the bill for them, lawyers that you don't need yourself because one would assume you credit yourself with superior comprehension skills, yet you can't understand this?
The principles of self ownership, the right to life, liberty and private pr f your own keyboard going ticker tacker that you don't realise what you expose of yourself.
I happen to agree with the doctors who support the bill, and disagree with the ones who don't. Feel free to troll away, since it's all you seem capable of doing.
BTW, how would the founders have voted on the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991?
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperAre you familiar with what a strawman is you poltroon. By conventional definition there is definitely no strawman in my post, perhaps there is a preemptive strawman, or a coaxial countersunk strawman, or a 'too much time in the rain' strawman argument, but then I wouldn't know what any one of those looked like.
Ah, yes. Nothing like broad sweeping examples of strawman.
I happen to agree with the doctors who support the bill, and disagree with the ones who don't. Feel free to troll away, since it's all you seem capable of doing.
BTW, how would the founders have voted on the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991?
And let's be honest you didn't say you disagreed, you said that they were trained in medical thought thus rendering them incompetent to understand the bill, which for some reason you believe yourself to have a superior comprehension of.
Originally posted by WajomaWhat would the slaveowners' opnion on the abolition of slavery have been?
Are you familiar with what a strawman is you poltroon. By conventional definition there is definitely no strawman in my post, perhaps there is a preemptive strawman, or a coaxial countersunk strawman, or a 'too much time in the rain' strawman argument, but then I wouldn't know what any one of those looked like.
And let's be honest you didn't say you disagr ...[text shortened]... d the bill, which for some reason you believe yourself to have a superior comprehension of.
Originally posted by WajomaYes, I'm very familiar with what a strawman argument is. It's when you give a rebuttal an argument that your opponent didn't make.
Are you familiar with what a strawman is you poltroon. By conventional definition there is definitely no strawman in my post, perhaps there is a preemptive strawman, or a coaxial countersunk strawman, or a 'too much time in the rain' strawman argument, but then I wouldn't know what any one of those looked like.
And let's be honest you didn't say you disagreed, you said that they were trained in ve a superior comprehension of.
I'm also familiar with what a childish little troll is and well, you're notorious in that department.
Since you're obviously slow let me break it down for you dummy style.
Some doctors agree with the HCR bill. I happen to agree with them.
Some doctors disagree with the HCR bill. I happen to disagree with them.
I did NOT say, suggest or imply that having a medical degree makes someone incompetent to understand a bill. What I did say was that having a medical degree doesn't automatically mean they have read and understand the bill. They're doctors, but they're also human beings and they are also susceptible to misinformation.
Now, I realize you're an extremely weak minded individual. But relying so heavily on strawman arguments doesn't help your case at all. Neither does huffing and puffing in troll mode like a five year old.
Now, have fun angrily punching away at your key board. Better yet, type one of those laffy faces or "LOL" so you can pretend you're not really mad right now.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperPooper: "They are not lawyers nor are they legislators. Obviously I'm not saying they're stupid (they're MD's after all). I'm just saying their education stems around biology."
Yes, I'm very familiar with what a strawman argument is. It's when you give a rebuttal an argument that your opponent didn't make.
I'm also familiar with what a childish little troll is and well, you're notorious in that department.
Since you're obviously slow let me break it down for you dummy style.
Some doctors agree with the HCR bil ...[text shortened]... of those laffy faces or "LOL" so you can pretend you're not really mad right now.
But you are a lawyer or legislator so you understand the bill better?
I have no reason to be angry here, I'm kicking ass.
2 edits
Originally posted by WajomaNo, and I never claimed to be.
Pooper: "They are not lawyers nor are they legislators. Obviously I'm not saying they're stupid (they're MD's after all). I'm just saying their education stems around biology."
But you are a lawyer or legislator so you understand the bill better?
I have no reason to be angry here, I'm kicking ass.
Here's the part you left out: "For starters, how many of them have read the bill?"
sh76 asked specifically why the doctors he spoke to are against the bill. I simply pointed out that, even though they're doctors they're just as susceptible as everyone else to misinformation.
The overwhelming majority of the public have not read any of the bill. The vast majority of the public haven't even gone to independent websites to read a summarized interpretation of the bill. They get their information from quick soundbites from various media outlets, from "what they've heard" and even from foolish chain emails. I'm sure medical doctors aren't generally (as) detached as the general public, but certainly to the point where they can also be subject to misinformation.
The point I'm making isn't that my comprehension skills are better than medical doctors. It's that even people in that profession can be misinformed about the bill, especially considering how hard misinformation has been deliberately pushed.
And you know the difference. But don't worry, I don't expect you to have the integrity to admit it.
Originally posted by WajomaWell then this will result in more innovation in the world that used to rely on the U.S. Surely?
And the world that relies on American medical innovation will suffer also, a 2.3% excise tax on medical devices taking effect in 2013, making it less lucrative to develop these devices and more costly to buy them. Thanks obama care.
Originally posted by BeyerThe US is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, yes, but obamacare isn't violating people's rights so whats the problem?
We're a republic, not a democracy. Meaning, rights of an individual can't be overrun by majority rule.
Point to me in the Constitution where Congress has this power?
Point to me in the Constitution where Congress has this power?
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_I
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives"
"The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
Originally posted by generalissimoExactly.
The US is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, yes, but obamacare isn't violating people's rights so whats the problem?
[b]Point to me in the Constitution where Congress has this power?
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_I
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be ves ...[text shortened]... States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"[/b]