Continue on leading the fools please.Originally Posted by Dreamseller
Wart
Continue on leading the fools please.
Wart
Snopes does put it as a mixture. I would not call it complete BS as much of it is probably relevant.
Last edited by mriddick; 01-01-2012 at 07:28 PM.
I'm sorry, did I curse at you? You seem upset. This was the original spirit of the bill. Thank God there were conservatives in place to see to it it was modulated. None of this was conjecture.
But does not know the real author.
Wart
The only fools I know are the ones that support a plan that raising the debt ceiling is the correct response to overspending. "I maxed out my credit card and can't pay it off. Can you just increase my limit?"Continue on leading the fools please.
Wart
For a liberal site like snopes if that's as much wrong as they will admit to then it's not too bad IMO... Actually they claim some (some as not all) was from some of the eariler versions of the bill, again if that's all they find wrong I would take it as being much worse then they'll admit to.
Still though the desire to take this off the topic of the real ills of the healthcare bill seems to be working, keep up the personal attacks they are falling for it
Sounds like a personal prob to me.
Wart
For a liberal site like snopes if that's as much wrong as they will admit to then it's not too bad IMO... Actually they claim some (some as not all) was from some of the eariler versions of the bill, again if that's all they find wrong I would take it as being much worse then they'll admit to.
Still though the desire to take this off the topic of the real ills of the healthcare bill seems to be working, keep up the personal attacks they are falling for itThat's why I questioned even before you posted the Snopes link. This at least the third time I've seen this crap floated. The bill is bad enough without any falsification.Actually they claim some (some as not all) was from some of the eariler versions of the bill.....
Wart
+1 mriddick! Did you know that part of the Health Care Bill involves government subsidization of abortions? This means that regardless of your religious views, you are required to pay taxes, and thus fund the murder of children.
Oh! that's cute how you quoted me out of context. Winning! (Charlie Sheen voice)
If you care to do the accounting it takes fewer tax dollars for abortions than welfare and incarceration . . . pay a little now or pay a lot more later
So you can tell a criminal and/or public assistance leech by his birth parents?
Your mother was pro-life. Welfare is the problem, not children. Reform welfare!
...and I'm going to cut you off right there and call bullshit.
First, laws are never referred to by "page" numbers, it is always title, section, subsection or similar format.
Page numbers would be damn near useless because laws change so frequently
Secondly, the "Health Care Bill"...and I assume by this you mean the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act...starts at section 1001, meaning there is no section 152
That's already been addressed, the OP was off one or more of the proposed bills, while everything in it did not make it to law much of it did (although maybe not written in legaleaze wording as posted).
acorns fall under the oak
Or the OP just parroted the made up bullshit that some loser put on the web.
Between the obvious flaws in the original post followed by an attack when someone asked for a link I personally find it difficult to believe any of it has any basis in reality whatsoever.
Why I commented on the parts I know are law (the lack of limits on publicly paid for healthcare and nonpayment of foreign national's healthcare.
I guess taking your logic one step further would we be better off aborting all people of a certain ethnic or economic status?
that's why he's the Dreamseller . . . you gotta be asleep to believe it
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks