BoatBanter.com - Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)

- - Bill Moyers on environment, politics and Christian fundamentalists (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/27823-re-bill-moyers-environment-politics-christian-fundamentalists.html)

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message

snip

I don't think you've been paying attention and you are making
a fool of
yourself. You might want to ask Tinkerntom to point you to
the post (long
ago) where I conceded that the way I framed the question
allowed you to meet
the burden of proof I requested.
==============================
Yet the proof was presented, and it proves you are a liar
regardless of how you make your claim.

All it proves is that I told you the people in Newfoundland
were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right.

You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your
dishonesty.
==========================
That was but one example to show that you were lying

Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is
waiting for
treatment.
=================
Yes, you did.

No, I didn't. The only evidence that you presented was my response to
your story about Newfoundland, in which you claimed people were
waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment.
==========================
LOL No, fool "I" didn't claim that, I posted the site, a Canadian
site, that states that, and backs it up. Too bad you can't seem to
keep things straight here, eh liarman?

It doesn't matter. Even if we differ on what the article itself says
(since the doctor in the article mentions specifically that all the
patients are under care, I don't know why you perseverate on it) the
point is I was only responding your claim about that one article - I
wasn't talking about all of Canada or all Canadians. I never said no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment - which is what you
claimed I said.
================
Yes, you did.

I refuted your claim that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2.5
years for treatment.
========================
No, you did not, liarman.

Yeah, I did.

You said:

"Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their 'convenience',
we're talking about the convenience of the medical systam. When that 'poor'
person arrives at a medical facility in need, then yes, I'm saying that they
will not wait 2 1/2 years for treatment."

Then I said:

"No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies."

Whether or not you choose to accept that refutation,
================
You have to make it first, liarman...

You said:

"Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their 'convenience',
we're talking about the convenience of the medical systam. When that 'poor'
person arrives at a medical facility in need, then yes, I'm saying that they
will not wait 2 1/2 years for treatment."

Then I said:

"No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies."

that in no way substantiates your false claim that I said no one in
Canada ever waits for treatment. You are a dishonest scumbag and you owe
me an apology.
==================
No, I don't. And, I'm not the one that claimed they would, liarman.
Where's yours?

Huh? You claimed I said no one in Canada waits for treatment. I did not say
that. Your claim is false. Your refusal to admit your claim is false makes
you dishonest, and your continued dishonesty makes you a scumbag and a
coward.

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message
nk.net...

"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"rick" wrote in message

snip

You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your
dishonesty.
==========================
That was but one example to show that you were lying

Whatever you think it was, I never said that no one in Canada is
waiting for
treatment.
=================
Yes, you did.

No, I didn't.
==============
Yes, you did, and 've explained it to you.

The only evidence that you presented was my response to your
story about Newfoundland, in which you claimed people were waiting 2
1/2 years for treatment. Within the same article, it is pointed out
that they are all in fact in receipt of treatment,
=================
Another lie, liarman. It does not. The original doctor wants the
scans so he can determine what treatment is necessary. Why do you
continur to lie so much? Genetic?

"While the wait is less than ideal, patients' conditions are being
investigated andfollowed by other medical means, said Geoffrey
Higgins, clinical chief of diagnostic imaging at the Health Care
Corporation of St. John's.
==================
Doesn't say they are getting treatment fool. Says their condition is
being monitored. If it worsens, THEN they get tests that will determine
their treatment.

Whether or not we are to agree on these semantics (and I don't agree with
you) you still owe me an apology for saying that I claimed no one in
Canada is waiting for treatment.
===========================
No fool, I don't. You made that statement, and have now admitted your
lie.

What lie?

I said that the people in Newfoundland are not waiting for treatment, which
is exactly what the doctor in the article said.

You are lying by claiming that I said no one in Canada waits for treatment.
I never said that. You are a dishonest scumbag.

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=========
Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on
forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us!
=========

i have no expectation that rick will stop, but i am hoping that kman
will wipe that baby **** that are rick's comments from his
blanket....
and then walk away....

frtzw906

That would be nice, and I would find it easier to find KMANs post, and
to post to them, since I know I would not have to wade through a bunch
of "stuff" that at this time I choose not to wade through. I am sure
there are many things that would be much more profitable to discuss! As
far as I am concerned, he apologized satisfactorily to rick regarding
the first issue, and also posted modifying and clarifying info
regarding the second tiff, which should put the situation to rest.
Regarding "r's" intransience, that is something that probably will not
change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely. TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
==========
In the last political cycle, there was talk here of being liberal on
social issues, and conservative on economic issues. I am not sure if
that is just a smoke screen for not knowing what you believe,
=========

It's actually quite simple Tink. I'll give you an example without
even
thinking about it too long. Social liberal: legalize MJ, legalize
prositution, allow gay marriages, pro-choice... OK, so far that
hasn't
cost us a penny.

Now for fiscal conservative: reduce military spending, eliminate
subsidies to corporate interests, charge ranchers for grazing on
federal lands, charge broadcasters more for using (abusing?) the
people's radio bands.... OK, still not costing you any money...

So, Tink, how was that hard to do?

frtzw906

frtwz, I would like to take a raincheck on this one, since there is
already a lot going on here, but feel free to cash in the rain check
later. TnT

BCITORGB wrote:
KMAN correctly asserts:
=========
The worst case is what the US has now...a bunch of socially
conservative assholes who are at the same time blowing their economic
wad faster than a soviet dictator in the middle of the Cold War!
========

So there you have it Tink: an example for social conservatism AND
fiscal liberaleralism.... now you tell us who does more damage?

frtzw906

Not to be picky, and I think I know what you are saying, but what is
"liberaleralism". If it is something we have not been discussing, I
will have to take time to google and figure what it is! :) TnT

Tink, you said:
=============
frtwz, I would like to take a raincheck on this one, since there is
already a lot going on here, but feel free to cash in the rain check
later. TnT
===========

Sure thing, Tink, but really this was not something that required
comment. You thought that being a social liberal and a fiscal
conservative would be difficult or impossible and I very simply gave
you an example of how that could readily be the case -- like me.

frtzw906

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=========
Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes on
forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of us!
=========

i have no expectation that rick will stop, but i am hoping that kman
will wipe that baby **** that are rick's comments from his
blanket....
and then walk away....

frtzw906

That would be nice, and I would find it easier to find KMANs post, and
to post to them, since I know I would not have to wade through a bunch
of "stuff" that at this time I choose not to wade through. I am sure
there are many things that would be much more profitable to discuss! As
far as I am concerned, he apologized satisfactorily to rick regarding
the first issue, and also posted modifying and clarifying info
regarding the second tiff, which should put the situation to rest.
Regarding "r's" intransience, that is something that probably will not
change, and any apology that KMAN expects from r is unlikely. TnT

I know, but at least the whole world now knows - without a doubt - what a
complete and utter asshole he is :-)

Tink asks:
========
Not to be picky, and I think I know what you are saying, but what is
"liberaleralism".
===============

to be fiscally liberal is to be rather "free" with money.... a social
liberal, like me, would advocate "freedom" in social interactions....
a social liberal would look at victimless interations and suggest that
people ought to be free to engage in them.... Note "liberal" comes from
the latin "liber" or FREE.

frtzw906

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

Michael Daly wrote:
On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose, how would
you
know
that it is God that did this

If He was in the form of a person, I wouldn't know. If it was
something
that could punch me in the nose but didn't look like a person
or
any
other common critter, I'd be suspicious. However, I don't know
that
"God" would be my first guess.

Mike

Fair enough, I agree that if He punched you in the nose, I
suspect
you
would be within the bounds of reason if God was not your first
guess.
Do you have any thoughts or guesses about what God would do if
He
confronted you face to face, if not punch you in the nose? TnT

He'd say: "How the hell could you talk about god with Tinkerntom
for
this
long! I was reading the thread and my head started to hurt so much
I
tried
to kill myself, but as you know, I'm an omnipotent spirit, to such
an
extent
that I can't even do myself in!"

I can see that lake of fire now, Kman on one side, and rick on the
other, yelling at each other. Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it goes
on
forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest of
us!
TnT

So, work your magic!

All I said was that - in my opinion - the people in Newfoundland were
not
waiting 2 /12 years for treatment. They were receiving treatment as
mentioned by the doctor in the article. But, whatever you think about
those
good folks in Newfoundland, I never said that no one in Canada ever
waits
for treatment as rick is alleging, and continue to insist upon,
despite his
total inability to demonstrate otherwise. And for that, he IS a
scumbag.

I understand what you said! The rest of the world understands what you
said! The only one who will not accept what you meant, and modified,
and clarified 25 times, is rick, and he may never choose to acknowledge
your first apology, or the modification of your second "declarative"
statement. That may mean that he is not a nice guy with civil manners!
So what, the longer you continue with him, the lower into the mud you
sink. It is up to you whether you choose to get out of the mud!

I think I can speak for a lot of people here on RBP, at least in
regards to this issue, your reputation is intact, and noone thinks less
of you for your mis-speaks. Hey we have all done it, and you
acknowledged it, which is hard, but none think anything the less of
you, and your continuing constructive input is welcome. However, I
would point out that as long as you continue with rick, you have little
that is worth responding too. At least I find it rather boring, and
certainly not stimulating. Maybe I should not speak for everyone in
regards to this. However I see no one else choosing to get between you
two, which would indicate that they are somewhere else. The sandbox is
lonely when you look around and noone else is there. TnT