patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,362,598 comments by 15,735 users - Booger, floki, RC2006 online now
« First « Previous Comments 19 - 57 of 57 Search these comments
Dan8267
2014 Jul 21, 2:39pm
You're welcome to prove it by refuting the statement's in the video in the original post.
I will look at it but I don't have a lot of extra time these days.
Says the guy who spends all day polluting Patrick.net with right-wing propaganda.
indigenous
2014 Jul 21, 2:40pm
This coming from someone who believes Sarah Palin is fit to be president. 'nuff said.
This from someone who thinks Warren would be a good one.
I don't recall saying Palin would be good for Prez she does't have the experience but certainly would do better than Obama or Warren. You see we do not need another pseudo intellectual. We just need someone who is honest.
Dan8267
2014 Jul 21, 2:40pm
Did you see how wonky Dan's arm was in his avatar??
As wonky as conservative ideology?
No, as wonky as your thought processes are.
Feel free to challenge any on my ideas in an open debate. Any time, any place.
indigenous
2014 Jul 21, 2:45pm
Funny you mention that, I'm STILL waiting for that list of accomplishments from Dan showing us why Warren is qualified to be president... It's been days and I still haven't seen a single accomplishment from him.
That is his debating style. They teach it over at Possum U or PU for short.
indigenous
2014 Jul 21, 2:52pm
Although, he would make a great wheel chock for my truck
See what I mean that is funny, I don't care who you are.
I think I would be able to win a debate with Bill Maher quite easily as he is a comedian, not an economist.
I'm sure you could "win" a debate with anyone. No one else on the planet defines winning as ignoring everything said and generally playing stupid, but for you it would be a win. .
I think I would be able to win a debate with Bill Maher quite easily as he is a comedian, not an economist.
I'm sure you could "win" a debate with anyone. No one else on the planet defines winning as ignoring everything said and generally playing stupid, but for you it would be a win. .
He wins by simply engaging his opponent. Its called trolling
Y
2014 Jul 21, 10:39pm
Opening sentence:
"Finally there's been an uproar over all the neocons who lied about the iraq war...."
So, which neocons 'lied' about the Iraq war, and what was the lie?
( don't go near WMD's, as that was universally accepted by everyone and the evidence was generated by multiple sources inside and outside the USA )
Y
2014 Jul 21, 10:43pm
this is damning evidence....
Even their screen names are the same, 3 letters followed by 4 numbers.... What are the odds of that?
Y
2014 Jul 21, 10:44pm
This is a statement of fact.
Why would you think it should be "funny" in the first place??
Also, neither of them is capable of being funny no matter how hard they try.
Case in point...
I've got to believe Dan and bob are the same person. Their comments come in pairs a few minutes apart way too frequently to be random.
Even their screen names are the same, 3 letters followed by 4 numbers.... What are the odds of that?
Y
2014 Jul 21, 10:48pm
I disagree.
Maher is funny to watch, I tivo the show all episodes.
The funniest scenes occur when one of his conservative guests take him to town over one of his stoned dilated pupil moments...
Bill Maher is never LOL in all fairness Stewart and Colbert are funny, they are just economically illiterate and they play to the biggest audience.
Y
2014 Jul 21, 10:51pm
OTOH, what if Dan and CIC are the same person, setting each other up for the kill, depending on which Shirley Mason was typing?
Y
2014 Jul 21, 10:52pm
If Palin was president we'd be in the middle of WWIII....
I don't recall saying Palin would be good for Prez she does't have the experience but certainly would do better than Obama or Warren. You see we do not need another pseudo intellectual. We just need someone who is honest.
Y
2014 Jul 21, 10:54pm
This means nothing coming from a liberal, as Obama has set the standard for defining "open debates", something he promised but never came close to delivering on.
Feel free to challenge any on my ideas in an open debate.
Dan8267
2014 Jul 22, 12:21pm
tautology
A tautology is a statement that's always true. Yes, that does describe my posts.
The opposite of a tautology is a contradiction, a statement that is always false. That perfectly describes your posts.
I can see why conservatives hate tautologies. The truth is their enemy.
Dan8267
2014 Jul 22, 12:22pm
This means nothing coming from a liberal, as Obama has
The fact that you consider Obama to be a liberal shows that you have your head up your ass.
indigenous
2014 Jul 22, 12:40pm
A tautology is a statement that's always true. Yes, that does describe my posts.
The opposite of a tautology is a contradiction, a statement that is always false. That perfectly describes your posts.
I can see why conservatives hate tautologies. The truth is their enemy.
No dumb ass, you have the wrong definition, the definition you are referring to is used in logic, something you are not in same zip code as...
The definition that I'm referring to is when the same idea is repeated with different words, so as to imply truth.
Dan8267
2014 Jul 22, 12:45pm
Obama to be a liberal
You consider him to be a communist?
Only an idiot would think that one has to be either a liberal or a communist. That's taking stupidity to a whole new level.
Dan8267
2014 Jul 22, 12:48pm
The definition that I'm referring to is when the same idea is repeated with different words, so as to imply truth.
One, you don't get to make up your own definitions.
Two, you're thinking of Fox News. I present evidence, which you then ignore. Fox News repeats lies even after they've been debunked. That was the whole point of this thread. It's what Bill Maher calls "zombie lies". The fact that you didn't make that connection just shows how divorced from reality you are.
I'm pretty sure Bob is a unique (possibly real) individual with some good and some sock puppet ideas. He keeps you wondering
Bob is very real, quite colorful, and definitely one of a kind, many people have told me so.
Remember in Patton when he screams at his staff let no man come back alive and his aid says sometimes they don't know if you are serious or not. Patton said "It's not important that they know, it's only important that I know".
I endeavor to continue to keep you guessing.
Dan8267
2014 Jul 22, 2:31pm
Now Dan is an advanced form of AI programmed to spew Petabytes of data. He gives thorough insightful analysis with a liberal bent and the twisted logic of the programming team that created him.
Sounds like a complement to me.
indigenous
2014 Jul 22, 2:35pm
Only an idiot would think that one has to be either a liberal or a communist.
Then splain you self?
indigenous
2014 Jul 22, 2:38pm
One, you don't get to make up your own definitions.
Only you would think I'm making this up.
It's what Bill Maher calls "zombie lies".
Yes an unimpeachable source of information, he is a mutt.
Dan8267
2014 Jul 22, 2:46pm
It's what Bill Maher calls "zombie lies".
Yes an unimpeachable source of information, he is a mutt.
For someone who bitches and moans about Bill Maher, you haven't shown one thing wrong with anything he's ever said. More importantly, you have not countered anything said in the posted video.
Calling someone a bad source doesn't make it true. In fact, given your reputation, people should have confidence in Maher. You calling someone a bad source is like the KKK saying someone doesn't have a good racial agenda.
indigenous
2014 Jul 22, 2:49pm
Calling someone a bad source doesn't make it true.
It is my tautology...
I'm not motivated he is so full of shit it is hard to know where to start.
Give me one point he makes and I will demonstrate (to a normal person) what a mutt he is.
indigenous
2014 Jul 23, 11:14am
Your statement is always false.
Says you.
Where is the point:
Give me one point he makes and I will demonstrate (to a normal person) what a mutt he is.
Dan8267
2014 Jul 23, 11:35am
Give me one point he makes and I will demonstrate (to a normal person) what a mutt he is.
The Republicans said that Obamacare was a government takeover. In reality, the insurance industry is making record profits.
indigenous
2014 Jul 23, 12:21pm
The Republicans said that Obamacare was a government takeover.
The government is forcing you to now buy health insurance, not the same as car insurance because driving is not a right. Your body is your possession and the government has denied you that right to decide what you will do with it regarding health.
They also say what you have to be covered for. I doubt you need to have pregnancy coverage.
Doctors are being slammed by government regulations.
New agencies are being created that will require further funding, and further decide what you can do with your body, all vying for more money in perpetuity.
States are being made subservient to the Federal government.
The Fed is requiring employers with more than 50 employees, have to provide insurance for their workers.
The Fed will decide what insurance is acceptable. People had their coverage cancelled by the government as it did not comply with the absurd regulations.
The government expands who will be covered at no cost to them, which gives the government more power over the taxpayer, and the market place.
The government will need to increase scrutiny over people's private lives in order to see that they are paying the proper premium.
There is a good chance that insurance companies will simply close down forcing their customers to go to a government contractor.
How could you say this is not a government takeover?
And as you say the cronys benefit by new customers especially regarding prescriptions.
Dan8267
2014 Jul 23, 1:08pm
How could you say this is not a government takeover?
MYTH: The Affordable Care Act is a government takeover of healthcare.
FACT: The law puts people, not government or insurance companies in charge of their health care. It seeks to increase greater access of affordable, quality health care through state exchanges that provide more affordable choices for individuals to buy insurance on the private market. Politifact's 2010 Lie of the Year: 'A government takeover of health care.'
“Government takeover†fears seem to take on several different variations.
Medicine will be a government run entity – doctors will be employed by the government and care will be paid for by the government.
All of the doctors will be employed by the government, but insurance companies will still exist.
The government will dictate what doctors can and cannot do.
The government will make it so onerous to practice medicine that everyone will quit.
If the government has one iota of involvement in any form, it is a government takeover.
None of which has happened.
Fox News Continues To Falsely Label ACA "Government-Run Health Insurance"
But the ACA is not "government-run" health insurance. The Affordable Care Act creates exchanges in which consumers can purchase health insurance that will be managed and operated by private health insurers. The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog pointed out that the ACA "builds on the existing private insurance" much like Massachusetts health insurance reform of 2006. Politfact called the claim that the ACA is a "government takeover of health care" the 2010 "Lie of the Year," explaining that the law "relies largely on the free market"
Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) myths: The “government takeover of health careâ€
It’s a bit too generous to use the term “myth†when it comes to the outright lies that have been told about the Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare.†But it’s never too late to debunk the baloney being circulated by right-wing media, Obama haters and Republican strategists hoping to turn Americans against a program that stands to help millions of people get access to affordable health insurance.
One of the biggest myths about the program is that it’s a “government takeover†of health care, and that it’s “socialized medicine.†The facts—the real one, not the fake ones—say otherwise.
Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up “exchanges†where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don’t have it.
The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.
The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.
The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.
Need I go on?
You have failed to refute Bill Maher's statement.
indigenous
2014 Jul 23, 2:20pm
First of all none of your quotes are Bill Maher's
It seeks to increase greater access of affordable, quality health care through state exchanges that provide more affordable choices for individuals to buy insurance on the private market.
Yet is delivers insurance for most who then have a $6000.00 deductible. Who will then be forced to not pay the hospital bill because they are medically indigent. Not to mention Obama stating that if you like your plan you can keep it, total lie.
Medicine will be a government run entity – doctors will be employed by the government and care will be paid for by the government.
All of the doctors will be employed by the government, but insurance companies will still exist.
The government will dictate what doctors can and cannot do.
The government will make it so onerous to practice medicine that everyone will quit.
It seems to me for practical purposes this IS what has happened with medicare. Given the trajectory of ALL government programs the ACA will follow suit.
The Affordable Care Act creates exchanges in which consumers can purchase health insurance that will be managed and operated by private health insurers.
Except many people's plans were cancelled as not complying with fed mandates. The mandates were absurd and extreme. E.G. pregnancy coverage for everyone.
Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
We will see but if it is less expensive for the companies to change insurers to one that relies more on the government they will. Not to mention the ones with less than 50 employees.
The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.
That is not how they work they regulate them into submission.
The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.
IOW cronyism
The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange.
Yet still with a $6000 deductible.
But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.
Socialized regulated into a malleable condition what is the difference?
Not that you quoted Maher but I still disproved all of your proclamations.
turtledove
2014 Jul 23, 3:09pm
OTOH, what if Dan and CIC are the same person, setting each other up for the kill, depending on which Shirley Mason was typing?
I think you and I might be the same person. Our names are both compound words. Wait! Did you just say that or was that me?
Y
2014 Jul 23, 3:19pm
We can't be....you're paying patrick's electric bill while I'm leeching electrons!!
Dan8267
2014 Jul 23, 4:20pm
First of all none of your quotes are Bill Maher's
Irrelevant. He does say the same thing, but he's not here to debate you. The point is that your "criticism" -- and I use that term loosely -- of his statement that the ACA is not a government takeover is not valid.
Yet is delivers
Your statement is irrelevant because...
individuals to buy insurance on the private market
That's why it's not a government take-over.
It seems to me for practical purposes this IS what has happened with medicare. Given the trajectory of ALL government programs the ACA will follow suit.
You are speculating on what might happen in the future and your speculations have no basis in reality. The fact is that none of the republican's predictions have come true. They have all been debunked thoroughly by the swift hand of history.
Except many people's plans were cancelled as not complying with fed mandates.
Plans that were exceptionally bad were invalidated. Whether or not your opinion of this is positive or negative is irrelevant. It's still nothing even remotely close to a government takeover. Therefore, Bill Maher was correct.
Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
We will see but if it is less expensive
Again, you are deliberately changing the subject to hide the fact that you have not address the one issue you were suppose to after throwing down the gauntlet.
I don't give a damn about your bitching about how much you dislike the ACA. The issue is whether or not Bill Maher was a comedic hack when he said Republicans continue to lie about the ACA being a government take-over of the health care system. So far, you have not even attempt to address that issue.
That is not how they work they regulate them into submission.
Ditto
IOW cronyism
Ditto
Yet still with a $6000 deductible.
Ditto
Let's get back to the issue at hand.
Give me one point he makes and I will demonstrate (to a normal person) what a mutt he is.
The Republicans said that Obamacare was a government takeover. In reality, the insurance industry is making record profits.
Round 1: Indigenous makes a lame, unsupported case that the ACA really is a government takeover. So the republicans are right to say that.
Dan counters by showing exactly why it's not with ample references.
Round 2: Indigenous blames Dan for not quoting Bill Maher in his response, as if Bill Maher knew while recording his show that some troll name Indigenous on Patrick.net would be making lame assertions that the government is taking over health care.
Then Indigenous bitches about particular things he doesn't like about the ACA. Whether or not his gripes have merit is irrelevant as they have nothing to do with the question of whether or not the ACA is a government takeover of health care.
Dan explains that.
That brings us to now.
I'll end this post by showing Indigenous what a real government take over of the heath care system would mean.
1. No private insurance companies.
2. No private hospitals or clinics.
3. All doctors are employees of the federal government.
4. The federal government sets the prices for health care.
5. The federal government sets the salary for doctors.
6. Insurance is no longer provided by your employer for anyone.
7. All insurance payments and all medical bills go directly to the government.
8. Your tax dollars pay for both abortions and contraceptives regardless of whether or not you like it.
9. The federal government decides whether or not you get treatment and what treatment you get.
10. Private pharmaceutical companies are nationalized. Their assets are ceased. Their board of directors are fired. All employees now work for the federal government. There are no longer any drug patents.
Now that would be a government takeover of health care. Absolutely none of the above have happened or are going to happen. We are not even remotely close to a single one of those things becoming reality.
Bill Maher was thoughtful and correct in his analysis. Indigenous just looks like a fool.
indigenous
2014 Jul 23, 9:47pm
That is not how it works, the US government does it's bidding by regulation. But it is the biggest centralized government in history. You would say unless it is a, Soviet style, direct government control it is not government takeover, which is complete bull shit.
As far as the debate goes you lost. Your ideas about it are delusional, I would say you have some sort mental disorder.
Dan8267
2014 Jul 24, 1:20am
You would say unless it is a, Soviet style, direct government control it is not government takeover, which is complete bull shit.
That's not what I said.
I gave 10 specific events that would constitute a government take-over in any sense of the term, none of which have happened or are going to.
You are simply coping out now.
indigenous
2014 Jul 24, 3:00am
That's not what I said.
Sure it is...
Like I said I will prove it to any normal person.
The only way you are normal is if your first name is ab...
« First « Previous Comments 19 - 57 of 57 Search these comments
http://www.RcAsyrL1LSU
Bill's been reading Patrick.net.