Posted by tecwrg on 11/15/2013 12:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/15/2013 12:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/15/2013 12:23:00 PM (view original):
You seem to believe that the President lying to the American public should be conditional.  OK in some circumstances, not OK in others.

Is that true?

I think A) that's exactly true and it's naive to believe otherwise and B) even if it wasn't OK, these two lies aren't be comparable in terms of the severity of the consequences.

OK.

What justified Obama's lie about "If you like the healthcare you have now, you can keep it"?

I'm not saying it's justified, I'm saying it isn't comparable to the lie that got us into Iraq.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/15/2013 11:23:00 AM (view original):
This is kind of a silly argument, as SH was a head of state, while OBL was not.  Different rules apply.

Taking out SH with ST6 would have created the hugest of shitstorms for the USA.  To try to pull something like that off, it would have had to have been the blackest of black-ops, with any possible connection to the USA as completely sanitized as possible.  It's not something that GWB would have held an 11:30pm nationally televised address to the nation to say "We got him".

It's illegal if I'm not mistaken.    Assassinations of political leaders are against NATO policy or some sort of policy.    We can drone strike suspected terrorists, or American citizens, but not heads of state.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/15/2013 12:44:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/15/2013 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/15/2013 12:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/15/2013 12:37:00 PM (view original):
I guess we'll go thru this again.   Be polite or be gone.    Matters not to me.

How was I impolite?

If you don't know, I can't help you.

Oh, you mean it was impolite to point out that you have been wrong about so many things (the deficit, marginal tax rates, economics in general, and baseball) that maybe you are wrong about this too?

My bad.

 

Your comparison was bad. The lies were not equivalent.

I'll try to explain.

Making a personal attack ALWAYS distracts from the topic.   You can't help yourself to do that but to go back 6-12 months where you think you "won".   It's boring and I'm not in the mood for it.   So....post what you will.    I'll decide if it stays.   Got it?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/15/2013 12:47:00 PM (view original):
I'll try to explain.

Making a personal attack ALWAYS distracts from the topic.   You can't help yourself to do that but to go back 6-12 months where you think you "won".   It's boring and I'm not in the mood for it.   So....post what you will.    I'll decide if it stays.   Got it?

It's not a personal attack. In general, you have no idea what you're talking about. You have made that point clear over, and over, and over again. 

Posted by bad_luck on 11/15/2013 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/15/2013 12:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/15/2013 12:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/15/2013 12:23:00 PM (view original):
You seem to believe that the President lying to the American public should be conditional.  OK in some circumstances, not OK in others.

Is that true?

I think A) that's exactly true and it's naive to believe otherwise and B) even if it wasn't OK, these two lies aren't be comparable in terms of the severity of the consequences.

OK.

What justified Obama's lie about "If you like the healthcare you have now, you can keep it"?

I'm not saying it's justified, I'm saying it isn't comparable to the lie that got us into Iraq.

Obama's lie: You can keep your same health care plan. Reality: 5% can't. The consequence: Those people will still have healthcare.

Bush's lie: Iraq has WMDs. Reality: They didn't. The consequence: Thousands of deaths.

 

The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in it.

The United States is not better off with Obamacare as the law of the land.

So there's that to consider also, when debating "whose lie is worse".

In general, I disagree with just about everything you stand for.  So it's quite the shocker that you think I have no idea what you're talking about.  

You should know that street runs both ways.   I just don't bother keeping track of where I feel you're wrong.   I assume you'll be wrong again soon enough so it's pointless to remember the last time.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/15/2013 12:50:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/15/2013 12:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/15/2013 12:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/15/2013 12:28:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 11/15/2013 12:23:00 PM (view original):
You seem to believe that the President lying to the American public should be conditional.  OK in some circumstances, not OK in others.

Is that true?

I think A) that's exactly true and it's naive to believe otherwise and B) even if it wasn't OK, these two lies aren't be comparable in terms of the severity of the consequences.

OK.

What justified Obama's lie about "If you like the healthcare you have now, you can keep it"?

I'm not saying it's justified, I'm saying it isn't comparable to the lie that got us into Iraq.

Obama's lie: You can keep your same health care plan. Reality: 5% can't. The consequence: Those people will still have healthcare.

Bush's lie: Iraq has WMDs. Reality: They didn't. The consequence: Thousands of deaths.

 

The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in it.

The United States is not better off with Obamacare as the law of the land.

So there's that to consider also, when debating "whose lie is worse".

I would argue that the lives of American's have been made worse by the Iraq war. 5000 families are missing someone who died because of the war. Obamacare kills no one. Some people have to change health coverage, which happens all the time, ACA or no ACA.

Case in point.   Trout/Cabrera.    Fellow lib says "We've done this already.  Why are you doing it again?"    

Are Fridays slow days in the insurance biz?    Because that's when you seem most argumentative.

OK, you should know that I haven't read your last half dozen posts.   But, if you quoted me, I've just deleted it.    So, if you want to address me, don't quote me.  Trust me, I'll know which post you're addressing.

So angry about stuff that means nothing.

Sigh.    Dogs learn quicker.

No anger.   Just trying to keep the posts in this thread relevant.