Bachmann's a liar

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, a lot of sour grapes in here.
 
jillio said:
And it certainly is not the first time that the loosing minority believes the majority were wrong. The point is, do the majority think they were wrong?

Now back to the Repub canditate who has already been caught in numerous lies.
Click to expand...
What is a "loosing" minority?
 
Beowulf said:
From the definition:
1. not firm or tight
2. not confined
3. not packed together
4. not exact

That is sort of what I expect at the 4th of July parade, but hey, as long as it is fun! :giggle:
Click to expand...

Given the exaggerations and outright lies we heard during the last election,I especially think the "not exact" is applicable when applied to the topic.
 
StSapphire said:
Ezra Klein - The importance of the individual mandate

Let me know once you've read this, if you still have opposition to the economic arguments of the necessity of the individual mandate, while still making insurance companies cover individuals with pre-existing conditions. If you still disagree, then let me know why, but I can't see any contradictions to the economic necessity argument.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that a mandate is absolutely necessary if you're going to go this route. The rotten experience of several states has shown this. What I meant is I don't believe this is the right direction to go.

Incidentally, I see Ezra claims that costs have dropped in Massachusetts. How he does this with a straight face is beyond me. The link he refers to says that the prices in the individual market have gone down. That is true but it's only because much of the cost was pushed onto those who get coverage from their employers. In total, it most likely has increased total costs significantly.

StSapphire said:
Of course there is. It simply boils down to this: We're better than that.

Gitmo was purposely built out of the country so that we didn't have to obey our own country's laws with regards to the prisoners. I think that we should. It's really that simple.
Click to expand...
We've never given prisoners of war constitutional rights in any war. Even if these terrorists had rights under the Geneva Convention (which they don't), they would not have a right to a trial. They could be held with humane treatment as long as the conflict lasted and then released. If we applied to terrorists the laws we apply to common criminals, it would be disaster. For instance, they would have a right to discovery which means they would be able to see whatever classified information the government had against them. The government would either have to divulge classified information or not use it in their case making it that much harder to prosecute.

As far as due process goes, this would be horrible for due process. Imagine for a minute that the administration did end up trying Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed in New York and the government doesn't have a very strong case against him because they didn't want to reveal classified information. KSM's lawyers could argue that he wasn't read his Miranda rights and he gave up information under duress. Suppose with all this, he was acquitted. Do you really think the government would allow Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed to go free? There's no way. They would detain him under some other charge. It would set awful precedent in a system not designed for dealing with war.

If there's still mistreatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, the administration can clean it up. They don't have to move the guys to other countries or especially this country.
 
darkdog said:
I don't disagree that a mandate is absolutely necessary if you're going to go this route. The rotten experience of several states has shown this. What I meant is I don't believe this is the right direction to go.

Incidentally, I see Ezra claims that costs have dropped in Massachusetts. How he does this with a straight face is beyond me. The link he refers to says that the prices in the individual market have gone down. That is true but it's only because much of the cost was pushed onto those who get coverage from their employers. In total, it most likely has increased total costs significantly.


We've never given prisoners of war constitutional rights in any war. Even if these terrorists had rights under the Geneva Convention (which they don't), they would not have a right to a trial. They could be held with humane treatment as long as the conflict lasted and then released. If we applied to terrorists the laws we apply to common criminals, it would be disaster. For instance, they would have a right to discovery which means they would be able to see whatever classified information the government had against them. The government would either have to divulge classified information or not use it in their case making it that much harder to prosecute.

As far as due process goes, this would be horrible for due process. Imagine for a minute that the administration did end up trying Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed in New York and the government doesn't have a very strong case against him because they didn't want to reveal classified information. KSM's lawyers could argue that he wasn't read his Miranda rights and he gave up information under duress. Suppose with all this, he was acquitted. Do you really think the government would allow Khaleid Sheikh Mohammed to go free? There's no way. They would detain him under some other charge. It would set awful precedent in a system not designed for dealing with war.

If there's still mistreatment of prisoners in Guantanamo, the administration can clean it up. They don't have to move the guys to other countries or especially this country.
Click to expand...

The issue is not constitutional rights, but human rights. We do, after all, consider ourselves to be a civilized nation.
 
jillio said:
Well, aren't we just as catty as our little friend? Shame you can't stick to the topic.
Click to expand...
Catty? Nope.

Funny, you don't worry about sticking to topics when you correct other people on their word usage.
 
Reba said:
Catty? Nope.

Funny, you don't worry about sticking to topics when you correct other people on their word usage.
Click to expand...

Yep, catty was the correct word. What a shame that you are more interested in playing out some sort of vindictive desire than in discussing the topic.

And, since you mention it, I also apologized in advance to the poster I commented toward their word usage in case they were to take offense, and explained that I just found that particular error humorous.

WWJD?

Now, let's put the claws away and return to the topic, shall we?
 
jillio said:
Yep, catty was the correct word. What a shame that you are more interested in playing out some sort of vindictive desire than in discussing the topic.
Click to expand...
Vindictive? Wow, have you got a problem if that's how you see it.

And, since you mention it, I also apologized in advance to the poster I commented toward their word usage in case they were to take offense, and explained that I just found that particular error humorous.
Click to expand...
I said people, plural. I usually overlook most of your repeated errors even though I feel bad for the many others whom you've berated.

WWJD?
Click to expand...
Most likely not be posting at AD. But what do you care?

Now, let's put the claws away and return to the topic, shall we?
Click to expand...
I never had any claws out. You're just more able to dish it out than take a little correction.
 
StSapphire said:
...Gitmo was purposely built out of the country so that we didn't have to obey our own country's laws with regards to the prisoners. I think that we should. It's really that simple....
Click to expand...
The GITMO base was already in existence for decades. I think you mean camps Delta, Echo, Iguana, and X-Ray but you're wrong about the reason that they were established.
 
Reba said:
Vindictive? Wow, have you got a problem if that's how you see it.


I said people, plural. I usually overlook most of your repeated errors even though I feel bad for the many others whom you've berated.


Most likely not be posting at AD. But what do you care?


I never had any claws out. You're just more able to dish it out than take a little correction.
Click to expand...

I don't know what variety of bug you have up your ass, but I would suggest having it removed. It is creating a situation of making you look extremely petty and vindictive.
 
jillio said:
I don't know what variety of bug you have up your ass, but I would suggest having it removed. It is creating a situation of making you look extremely petty and vindictive.
Click to expand...

Well, I can make an assumption of the varieties of bugs up your ass ... but that would be speculation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top