|
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 5:59 PM: snip... You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== 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. No one is waiting for treatment. ====================== Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have agreed to that, now. Nono. Stop being dishonest. I never said no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================ Yes, you did. No, I didn't. I respond to your goofy claim that the people in your example were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment when in fact they were all in current receipt of care. Stop being such a scumbag. You owe me an apology but your are too weak and too much of coward to do it. ====================== Nope. Where's yours, liarman? I responded to your allegation that the people featured in the story were waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all persons in Canada. ===================== No, you replied that no one is waiting for treatment. liarman. You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big of a coward to do it. +================= No, I don't. But it seems you have forgotten about your, eh liarman. Proof that people are dying in waiting lines in Canada have been presented to you, yet you are still spewing about a lie you have already taken back. Why is that, liarman? Don't want to discuss your continued willful ignorance? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 6:03 PM: snip.. You've captured it perfectly. I got so frustrated with rick's spew that I tried to pin him down and make him focus more on his wild claims about Canadian health care, and all that happened instead is he took the dishonest tactic of picking on the wording of my attempts to make him focus. ===================== No, there was no misleading by me of your lies, er wording, liarman. You made direct declarative statements that you cannot back up. I focused entirely on your lies that no 1) no one is waiting for treatment in Canada, Scumbag. You know very well what I declared was that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting for 2 1/2 years for treatment - the lie YOU were telling. But you are too big of a coward to admit it. ====================== Nope. that's not what you said Yes it is. I responded to your allegation that the people featured in the story were waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all persons in Canada. ======================== Nope. you claimed no one was waiting for treatment, liarman. But again, where's your backing of your claims that no one is dying while in those wait lines? Too busy continuing your spew about a lie you have already taken back? You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big of a coward to do it. ===================== Nope. Where's yours, liarman. Afterall, your lying has been proven. |
|
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 5:46 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. snip... === So, coward, why are you being a scumbag and refusing to name those valid and valuable purposes of assault weapons? ====================== Because, liarman, unlike you, I don't purport to be the arbiter of what is useful, valuable, or necessary. That is the perogative of eack person, liarman. Why did you say weapons also have valid and valuable purposes if you were not prepared to name them? What a coward! ================== Nope. Because, unlike you, I don't pretend to be the arbiter of what is and is not a valuable use for 'any' product. You said that assault weapons have value. That's just an empty assertion unless you are prepared to state the value. Grow up. =========================== You've claimed alot of things here in this group, and have yet to back any of those assertion up with anything but your lies. Talk about emptiness, that's the whole of your writings. Why now must everyone else bend to your ignorance, liarman? Again, what is of 'value' is different to different people. Why should I presume to speak for everyine just because you feel you can, liarman? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 5:48 PM: snip... Post the whole thing, including headers. What are you afriad of? ==================== Nothing liarman, I posted your statement. Your lie. Too bad for you. I didn't lie. The people in your example are not waiting for treatment as the FULL quote fully shows. ================= No, the full quote backs up that you lied even more. You seperate treatment from tests, and then claim that 'no one' is waiting for treatment. Yes, in response to your allegation that the people featured in the story were waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all persons in Canada. You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big of a coward to do it. ================== Nope. Where's yours. liarman? |
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 6:01 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message ps.com... KMAN, I was pleased with the effort Tink took to get a handle on this situation. And, from my own perspective, I've done some reading about various systems and have at least a passing acquaintance with a variety of European models (I now know the difference between the Beveridge and the Bismark approaches to healthcare funding). In that sense, all of this has been useful for me. It's too bad rick could never see the value in such discourse. ==================== LOL I tried, fool. All I got was a bunch of jingoistic chest-thumping lies. Perhaps you should stop telling them, then. ===================== I didn't lie, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman? Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet? I'm not lying about anything. ===================== Yes, you are, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman? Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet? 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. The way you have gone on and on about it has further cemented your reputation as a petty juvenile, and your refusal to apologize for your extreme dishonesty in saying I claimed that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment has added coward and scumbag to your character traits. |
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 6:03 PM: snip.. You've captured it perfectly. I got so frustrated with rick's spew that I tried to pin him down and make him focus more on his wild claims about Canadian health care, and all that happened instead is he took the dishonest tactic of picking on the wording of my attempts to make him focus. ===================== No, there was no misleading by me of your lies, er wording, liarman. You made direct declarative statements that you cannot back up. I focused entirely on your lies that no 1) no one is waiting for treatment in Canada, Scumbag. You know very well what I declared was that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting for 2 1/2 years for treatment - the lie YOU were telling. But you are too big of a coward to admit it. ====================== Nope. that's not what you said Yes it is. I responded to your allegation that the people featured in the story were waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all persons in Canada. ======================== Nope. you claimed no one was waiting for treatment No. I said that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting for treatment as you had falsely claimed. Your refusal to apolgize for your dishonesty is further cementing your reputation as a coward and scumbag. |
in article et, rick at
wrote on 3/2/05 10:21 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 5:46 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. snip... === So, coward, why are you being a scumbag and refusing to name those valid and valuable purposes of assault weapons? ====================== Because, liarman, unlike you, I don't purport to be the arbiter of what is useful, valuable, or necessary. That is the perogative of eack person, liarman. Why did you say weapons also have valid and valuable purposes if you were not prepared to name them? What a coward! ================== Nope. Because, unlike you, I don't pretend to be the arbiter of what is and is not a valuable use for 'any' product. You said that assault weapons have value. That's just an empty assertion unless you are prepared to state the value. Grow up. =========================== You've claimed alot of things here in this group, and have yet to back any of those assertion up with anything but your lies. Talk about emptiness, that's the whole of your writings. Why now must everyone else bend to your ignorance, liarman? Again, what is of 'value' is different to different people. Why should I presume to speak for everyine just because you feel you can, liarman? What a weasel! You said assault weapons have value. If you can't say what that value is, then your point is lost, your argument is once again defeated, and you can go home and clean your guns. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 10:18 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 5:59 PM: snip... You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== 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. No one is waiting for treatment. ====================== Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have agreed to that, now. Nono. Stop being dishonest. I never said no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================ Yes, you did. No, I didn't. I respond to your goofy claim that the people in your example were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment when in fact they were all in current receipt of care. Stop being such a scumbag. You owe me an apology but your are too weak and too much of coward to do it. ====================== Nope. Where's yours, liarman? I responded to your allegation that the people featured in the story were waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all persons in Canada. ===================== No, you replied that no one is waiting for treatment. liarman. You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big of a coward to do it. +================= No, I don't. But it seems you have forgotten about your, eh liarman. Proof that people are dying in waiting lines in Canada have been presented to you, yet you are still spewing about a lie you have already taken back. Why is that, liarman? Don't want to discuss your continued willful ignorance? What happened is you blathered on about the people in Newfoundland waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and I responded that they are not waiting for treatment. And they aren't. So stop being a scumbag, stop being a coward, suck it up and apologize. Or are you just too weak? ======================== ROTFLMAO You really are this desperate now, aren't you, liarman? I'm not the one that was blathering about it. It was a single post, included with other sites. You have latched onto it in a desperate attempt to divert attention from tha reast of your willful ignorance, people dying while on wait lists. I can understand how you would wnat to continue to spew about a lie you made and have already taken back though, liarman. You want to do that because you cannot refute the fact that you are a proven liar. As to an apology, you are the one that said you would when proven wrong, but as we can see, you lied about that too! Not a surprise though, eh liarman? |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 6:01 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message ps.com... KMAN, I was pleased with the effort Tink took to get a handle on this situation. And, from my own perspective, I've done some reading about various systems and have at least a passing acquaintance with a variety of European models (I now know the difference between the Beveridge and the Bismark approaches to healthcare funding). In that sense, all of this has been useful for me. It's too bad rick could never see the value in such discourse. ==================== LOL I tried, fool. All I got was a bunch of jingoistic chest-thumping lies. Perhaps you should stop telling them, then. ===================== I didn't lie, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman? Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet? I'm not lying about anything. ===================== Yes, you are, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman? Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet? 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. The way you have gone on and on about it has further cemented your reputation as a petty juvenile, and your refusal to apologize for your extreme dishonesty in saying I claimed that no one in Canada is waiting for treatment has added coward and scumbag to your character traits. ==================== LOL No, I have proven you to be the liar that your are. Also that you are willfully ignorant and plan to remain so. This all started because YOU claimed no one in Canada was dying because they are waiting for treatment. You lied then, and you continue to lie. You can't seem to help yourslef, can you, liarman? You now are trying to divert the discussion onto a lie that you have now taken back, that no one is waiting for treatment. Why can't you saty on focus of the original discussion, liarman? Oh, yeah, because you've been proven to have lied about that too! |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 6:03 PM: snip.. You've captured it perfectly. I got so frustrated with rick's spew that I tried to pin him down and make him focus more on his wild claims about Canadian health care, and all that happened instead is he took the dishonest tactic of picking on the wording of my attempts to make him focus. ===================== No, there was no misleading by me of your lies, er wording, liarman. You made direct declarative statements that you cannot back up. I focused entirely on your lies that no 1) no one is waiting for treatment in Canada, Scumbag. You know very well what I declared was that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting for 2 1/2 years for treatment - the lie YOU were telling. But you are too big of a coward to admit it. ====================== Nope. that's not what you said Yes it is. I responded to your allegation that the people featured in the story were waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all persons in Canada. ======================== Nope. you claimed no one was waiting for treatment No. I said that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting for treatment as you had falsely claimed. Your refusal to apolgize for your dishonesty is further cementing your reputation as a coward and scumbag. ============================ Nope. That's what you are trying to explain away now because you must continue to blather on about this to deivert the discussion from your original lie, no one is dying while on wait lists, liarman. You have been proven to be a liar, and willfully ignorant. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 10:21 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 5:46 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. snip... === So, coward, why are you being a scumbag and refusing to name those valid and valuable purposes of assault weapons? ====================== Because, liarman, unlike you, I don't purport to be the arbiter of what is useful, valuable, or necessary. That is the perogative of eack person, liarman. Why did you say weapons also have valid and valuable purposes if you were not prepared to name them? What a coward! ================== Nope. Because, unlike you, I don't pretend to be the arbiter of what is and is not a valuable use for 'any' product. You said that assault weapons have value. That's just an empty assertion unless you are prepared to state the value. Grow up. =========================== You've claimed alot of things here in this group, and have yet to back any of those assertion up with anything but your lies. Talk about emptiness, that's the whole of your writings. Why now must everyone else bend to your ignorance, liarman? Again, what is of 'value' is different to different people. Why should I presume to speak for everyine just because you feel you can, liarman? What a weasel! =============== No weasel about it, liarman. I don't claim to be the arbiter of everyone elses ideas like you do. You said assault weapons have value. ======================= They do. Just like cars. If you can't say what that value is, then your point is lost, your argument is once again defeated, and you can go home and clean your guns. ============================= Why does my value make any difference to you, liarman. You have lost again. Again, unlike you, I don't claim to make the call for everyone else. You can play at being the god you claim you don't belive in all you want. I'm not delusional like you are, and don't even care to pretend to be god. |
Michael Daly wrote: On 1-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Well, given that there are many examples of the various manifestations of God in the Bible, Hey dickhead - you still insist on ignoring what I wrote in favour of your bizarre interpretations. I said "no manifestations of God _as_God_" If you can't cope with that, it's your problem. Michael, if you can cope with me and humor me a little, I would like to ask you a few questions. You have addressed most of your post directly to Scott, and if you do not wish to engage me, I will understand, and respect yours and Scotts conversation. I have been watching this particular thread with interest, as I spent the last couple days frittering away my time with KMAN and rick. I saw they are at it again tonight, and I decided to deal with something that sounds much more interesting. You have been conversing with Scott since 2/21 and seem to be trying to get to some point that I am curious about, but have not been able to acertain exactly what that point is. It seems that you are saying something that is going over Scotts head or experience. I believe that he has admitted that he is not a particularly religious person, so his arguement is primarily academic. You seem to be saying something more. You have said, "no manifestations of God _as_God_", which I find to be a very intrigueing statement. Are you arguing as well from an academic position, or do you have something more in mind. I am not sure that Scott can go beyond the academics on this subject. Are you really interested, curious, or just playing head games with Scott? I have included the link to the word "theophanies", and which gives a brief study of the word. http://www.carm.org/misc/plurality.htm You say the theophanies are not really God_as_God appearing in this world, time and space. Do you have some other particular incident in mind, either past, present or future, that would accomplish the desirable and acceptable level of verifiable proof to be considered not only evidence, but God_as God revelation? Have you experienced any such incident that is inspiring this line of discussion, so as to be able to describe in a meaningful way for us? Or are you saying that it is in fact impossible, based on the separation of the spiritual realm, and the world where we now dwell, and that we are just blowing smoke if we claim such an event has ever, or will ever occur? If you could answer these questions, I would be interested in continuing with your discussion later. TnT |
Nisarel wrote:
Wilko wrote: It's called trolling... Scott has been doing that for many years, He's not very good. Nope, he isn't, but he does seem to catch unaware newbies to this group every once in a while... :-( -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ============== FOCUS! He only said that some have died while waiting for a Medical Test or Procedure. ============== Tink, thanks for what you've done here; you've provided a conciliatory tone. Look, I don't know KMAN, but from his posts, I can well imagine where he was coming from (insofar as I felt the same way but was disinclined to carry on a discussion with one as one-tracked as rick). Over here, in the Great White North, inundated as we are with American media, we constantly hear the ignorant bleatings of the American right-wing. And this nonsense about people "dying while on a waiting list" is one of those bits of nonsense. So let's step back a bit. Do people die on waiting lists? Of course they do. We're talking about illnesses and medicine. How could people NOT die on waiting lists. And that applies to waiting lists in Canada, Sweden, Germany, and the United States. People die on waiting lists PERIOD. OK, we've gotten that out of the way. I'll not speak for KMAN, but from where I'm looking at the discussion, I suspect KMAN is smart enough to realise this as well. I react (I suppose KMAN does) to the nonsense we hear from south of the 49th -- it is exactly as the one article you recommended says; exceedingly long waiting lists are very rare and talk about them is just media hype. For us (and for citizens of all nations) the public debate about medicine is part economic, part ethical, and part philosophical. As you pointed out, after doing extensive reading about our system, you've learned that our system is quite good at early intervention (nobody has to ask whether or not they can afford it), it is good at providing for the poor and the indigent. And, as you so eloquently put it, good at raising the general level of health care in the populace. On principle, we believe that need, not money, should determine where you are in the waiting list. As with most systems, there is an economic component. Emphasis on one element of healthcare generally means that another aspect gets fewer resources. So, given the emphasis and benefits listed above, there are likely to be waiting lists in some other parts of the system. The question that we, as a society, have to answer is, "Are we willing to tolerate a 3 month waiting time for joint replacement surgery if it means that we'll have generally higher health standards or greater accessability for the entire populace?" We've answered "Yes". Americans continue to answer "No". To sum up: I think KMAN's responses are less "jingoistic chest thumping" as rick likes to call it, and more frustrated responses to right-wing nonsense fed by a media machine. Tink, I hope you brought this ping-ponging to and end. Thanks. frtzw906 Very good summary, and I appreciate your time and understanding. Though it appears tha K&R are still at it! Sigh! I will look forward to further dialog, and when time permits plan to research the question Doctors working for the Gov. I am also interested in cont. the discussion about MBPI. Till then, TnT |
BCITORGB wrote: Tink says: ================== No, you have alot right, I in fact have a truck full of tools, and jumper cables, and tow ropes. I have been known to stop in the middle of the central valley highway, now known as TREX, and pull astranded mororist out of the traffic during rush hour. Having done so whn they offer to pay me, I say know, but let me tell you about God's Love. ============= Now that would freak me out, Tink, but I'd be ever-so grateful for your help anyway. But this leads me to another question having to do with religion. I'm assuming, when you talk of religion, you're talking about Christianity, right? OK, I know this was kinda faddish, trendy, and perhaps corny a year or two ago, but what about that "What would Jesus do?" query? Look, here's where I'm going with this. Those of us in the center, politically (that would be left to those in the red states), always kinda liked that question. Even though we tended not to be the religious types, the "What would Jesus do?" question appealed to many of us because, well, the answer generally came out as "Whatever the socialists would do, that's what Jesus would do." Pick a social topic, Tink. Any topic. Let's say, healthcare plans. You've now read about quite a few different public policy options. "Which would Jesus choose?" Capital punishment (or not)? What would Jesus choose? And we could go on, and on, through a long laundry list of social and public policy issues. My bet is, 90% of the time (at a minimum), Jesus would come down on the side of the left-wing liberals. Whadda think, Tink? WINK The lefties love you! frtzw906 This is another great post, and I would love to go into depth, but that will have to wait till later. Briefly, capital punishment, Jesus said, "Let him that is without transgression of the law, throw the first Stone" the sick and hugry, he healed them and fed them. Now I would like to ask you a question, Jesus told us not to proselytize, but we are to witness. What does each mean, and what is the difference? Would this have any bering on my statements about God's love on RBP? TnT |
"rick" wrote in message link.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 10:18 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 5:59 PM: snip... You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== 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. No one is waiting for treatment. ====================== Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have agreed to that, now. Nono. Stop being dishonest. I never said no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================ Yes, you did. No, I didn't. I respond to your goofy claim that the people in your example were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment when in fact they were all in current receipt of care. Stop being such a scumbag. You owe me an apology but your are too weak and too much of coward to do it. ====================== Nope. Where's yours, liarman? I responded to your allegation that the people featured in the story were waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all persons in Canada. ===================== No, you replied that no one is waiting for treatment. liarman. You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big of a coward to do it. +================= No, I don't. But it seems you have forgotten about your, eh liarman. Proof that people are dying in waiting lines in Canada have been presented to you, yet you are still spewing about a lie you have already taken back. Why is that, liarman? Don't want to discuss your continued willful ignorance? What happened is you blathered on about the people in Newfoundland waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and I responded that they are not waiting for treatment. And they aren't. So stop being a scumbag, stop being a coward, suck it up and apologize. Or are you just too weak? ======================== ROTFLMAO You really are this desperate now, aren't you, liarman? I'm not the one that was blathering about it. Yeah, you were. You were rambling on about how people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment in the story about people in Newfoundland. They aren't waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and I told you so. Then you tried to say that I was stating that no one in Canada waits for anything, which is not what I said at all. You are a scumbag. |
"rick" wrote in message link.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 6:01 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message ps.com... KMAN, I was pleased with the effort Tink took to get a handle on this situation. And, from my own perspective, I've done some reading about various systems and have at least a passing acquaintance with a variety of European models (I now know the difference between the Beveridge and the Bismark approaches to healthcare funding). In that sense, all of this has been useful for me. It's too bad rick could never see the value in such discourse. ==================== LOL I tried, fool. All I got was a bunch of jingoistic chest-thumping lies. Perhaps you should stop telling them, then. ===================== I didn't lie, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman? Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet? I'm not lying about anything. ===================== Yes, you are, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman? Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet? 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. |
"rick" wrote in message link.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 6:03 PM: snip.. You've captured it perfectly. I got so frustrated with rick's spew that I tried to pin him down and make him focus more on his wild claims about Canadian health care, and all that happened instead is he took the dishonest tactic of picking on the wording of my attempts to make him focus. ===================== No, there was no misleading by me of your lies, er wording, liarman. You made direct declarative statements that you cannot back up. I focused entirely on your lies that no 1) no one is waiting for treatment in Canada, Scumbag. You know very well what I declared was that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting for 2 1/2 years for treatment - the lie YOU were telling. But you are too big of a coward to admit it. ====================== Nope. that's not what you said Yes it is. I responded to your allegation that the people featured in the story were waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all persons in Canada. ======================== Nope. you claimed no one was waiting for treatment No. I said that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting for treatment as you had falsely claimed. Your refusal to apolgize for your dishonesty is further cementing your reputation as a coward and scumbag. ============================ Nope. That's what you are trying to explain away now 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. |
"rick" wrote in message link.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 10:21 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 5:46 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message . .. snip... === So, coward, why are you being a scumbag and refusing to name those valid and valuable purposes of assault weapons? ====================== Because, liarman, unlike you, I don't purport to be the arbiter of what is useful, valuable, or necessary. That is the perogative of eack person, liarman. Why did you say weapons also have valid and valuable purposes if you were not prepared to name them? What a coward! ================== Nope. Because, unlike you, I don't pretend to be the arbiter of what is and is not a valuable use for 'any' product. You said that assault weapons have value. That's just an empty assertion unless you are prepared to state the value. Grow up. =========================== You've claimed alot of things here in this group, and have yet to back any of those assertion up with anything but your lies. Talk about emptiness, that's the whole of your writings. Why now must everyone else bend to your ignorance, liarman? Again, what is of 'value' is different to different people. Why should I presume to speak for everyine just because you feel you can, liarman? What a weasel! =============== No weasel about it, liarman. I don't claim to be the arbiter of everyone elses ideas like you do. But you nevertheless claim that assault weapons have value. If the value (which would have to be named) is not comparable to the value of driving a car, then the analogy with cars fails. Understand, fool? |
Tink says:
=============== Briefly, capital punishment, Jesus said, "Let him that is without transgression of the law, throw the first Stone" ================= I don't know if those were his "exact" words, and I'm certainly no student of theology, but wasn't the whole point of that scene to show/explain the NO ONE is without sin ("transgresion"?). Hence, if I interpret right, no one ought to cast any stones. I further read that to mean that no one or no society ought to be casting stones or otherwise killing other humans. Do I think I've interpreted correctly? Tink says: ================= the sick and hugry, he healed them and fed them. ================== From his example, I have to think he would have liked to notion of "being one's brothers keeper" and that he was big on the notion of charity. He clearly felt that the sick had a right to be healed. Now Tink, doesn't this speak to the notion of univeral health care and assistance to the needy where required? On these two counts, Tink, I think Jesus qualifies as a left-winger. Remember, lefties love you.... we're very charitable. frtzw906 |
Tink says:
=========== Now I would like to ask you a question, Jesus told us not to proselytize, but we are to witness. What does each mean, and what is the difference? Would this have any bering on my statements about God's love on RBP? ============= I'm a 4th or 5th generation atheist/agnostic. I'm not a good one to ask what a concept like "witness" means. Further, I don't take the words of Jesus as an injunction. What does it mean to you? When JW's come to my door, (to witness, I presume) I treat them with respect but firmly tell them they are wasting their time with me. I'll give them about 2 minutes and then I politely excuse myself. This is an intrusion, like telemarketing, but I sense these a very well-meaning people so I generally give them more respect than I'd give the average telemarketer. Nonetheless, like the telemarketer, I'd rather they didn't witness all over my front porch. frtzw906, who has never met an atheist who ever wanted to fly planes into office towers. |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... Tink says: =============== Briefly, capital punishment, Jesus said, "Let him that is without transgression of the law, throw the first Stone" ================= I don't know if those were his "exact" words, and I'm certainly no student of theology, but wasn't the whole point of that scene to show/explain the NO ONE is without sin ("transgresion"?). Hence, if I interpret right, no one ought to cast any stones. I further read that to mean that no one or no society ought to be casting stones or otherwise killing other humans. Do I think I've interpreted correctly? Tink says: ================= the sick and hugry, he healed them and fed them. ================== From his example, I have to think he would have liked to notion of "being one's brothers keeper" and that he was big on the notion of charity. He clearly felt that the sick had a right to be healed. Now Tink, doesn't this speak to the notion of univeral health care and assistance to the needy where required? On these two counts, Tink, I think Jesus qualifies as a left-winger. Remember, lefties love you.... we're very charitable. frtzw906 What the....? Now there's an argument about whether or not the Jesus that appears in the stories in the Bible was left-wing or right-wing?!? If Jesus was right-wing, does that mean the good folks that crucified him were left-wing?!? |
KMAN:
==================== What the....? Now there's an argument about whether or not the Jesus that appears in the stories in the Bible was left-wing or right-wing?!? ============= KMAN, I'm always intrigued by the fundies and their take on public policy. Inevitably, it's a right-wing stance. Notwithstanding that I profess to be fairly ignorant of most things biblical, I do get the general impression, if one were to ask "What would Jesus do?", he would come down in favor of most public policies advocated by those on the left side of the political spectrum. I'm asking Tink what he thinks. [Aside: given all that biblical stuff about tossing the money lenders ifrom the temple, feeding the poor, healing the sick, brother's keeper, etc etc,, I find it hard to believe that Jesus would have been a huge George Bus fan.] frtzw906 |
KMAN asks:
=========== If Jesus was right-wing, does that mean the good folks that crucified him were left-wing?!? ================== Of course I'm arguing that he was left-wing. So, if you like, those who crucified him "may" have been right-wing. We do know, that they were not keen on people speaking their minds and creating waves for the government. Kinda like homeland security, I reckon. frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says: =============== Briefly, capital punishment, Jesus said, "Let him that is without transgression of the law, throw the first Stone" ================= I don't know if those were his "exact" words, and I'm certainly no student of theology, but wasn't the whole point of that scene to show/explain the NO ONE is without sin ("transgresion"?). Hence, if I interpret right, no one ought to cast any stones. I further read that to mean that no one or no society ought to be casting stones or otherwise killing other humans. Do I think I've interpreted correctly? Tink says: ================= the sick and hugry, he healed them and fed them. ================== From his example, I have to think he would have liked to notion of "being one's brothers keeper" and that he was big on the notion of charity. He clearly felt that the sick had a right to be healed. Now Tink, doesn't this speak to the notion of univeral health care and assistance to the needy where required? On these two counts, Tink, I think Jesus qualifies as a left-winger. Remember, lefties love you.... we're very charitable. frtzw906 frtwz, This promises to be interesting! and hopefully charitable! To lay some ground work, so that we are on the same page, and understanding that some of this has been discussed before. Labels are very difficult to follow, and have switched ends of the political spectrum many times, and add to that we are on different sides of an adjoining border, with apparent political disparity in abundance. To say the least, it is sometimes difficult to follow. Now I don't mean to play word games with the words liberal and conservative, just to say lets keep them in the corner of our eye. If we have a misunderstanding it may be a good place to start to sort things out. Add to the political label difficulties, that there have been as many, and maybe even more religions label changes, we are trying to see through some pretty thick fog, while sludging along, pulling our kayak fully loaded, through some nasty mud flats. To say I can see clearly now would be a serious understatement, and unless we maintain a good sense of humor, the trek through the mud flats will eat our lunch. First, briefly, I will approach the discussion from a "religous" viewpoint. Jesus teaches us to be charitable, I don't know that anyone has any particular claim that he taught us to be stingy and mean. Where is the liberal claim to exclusive right to being charitable. And would that mean the opposite of conservatives. And so we quickly come to a deadend, by approching from a religious viewpoint, you cannot make clear distinctions that would separate the issues into distinct and debatable packages. Now from a political viewpoint, you as a liberal are claiming that Jesus taught charity as advocated and practiced by you and other liberals. And of course Conservatives make the same claims. Now we have apples and apples that can be compared, distinct packages that are debatable. Am I making sense, and is my basic logic sound? You say that the liberal philosophy concerning capial punishment is in agreement with Jesus' teaching about "Throwing the first stone." Briefly, capital punishment, Jesus said, "Let him that is without transgression of the law, throw the first Stone" ================= I don't know if those were his "exact" words, and I'm certainly no student of theology, but wasn't the whole point of that scene to show/explain the NO ONE is without sin ("transgresion"?). Hence, if I interpret right, no one ought to cast any stones. I further read that to mean that no one or no society ought to be casting stones or otherwise killing other humans. Do I think I've interpreted correctly? First off I would point out that I avoided using the Sin word inorder to protect tender and sensitive ears that may have been listening to our discussion. The word sin has many aspects, and way beyond our discussion here. The issue with the men who brought the woman caught in adultery, was that she was breaking a specific civil law. The application to our day, and the civil law today, is then more apparent, and the application more clear, though limited. It is said that when confronted by the men, that Jesus squatted down and wrote in the sand. Tradition has it that he wrote the first ten laws of the civil code of the day, laws that we call the Ten Commandments. When faced by what they read, and His challenge "Let him that is without...", they all left the scene of the confrontation, leaving Jesus and the woman. Whereupon Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you." Tradition would also have it that this woman was Mary Magdalene who became one of his most ardent followers. I went into this short description of the scene inorder to set the stage since you have acknowledged that you are not a Bible scholar, and I don't want to take your understanding or misunderstanding for granted. Also I am well aware of the difficuties when a statement is taken out of context as we were made well aware of in the ongoing saga or K&r! Contextually, the men brought the woman to Jesus because they were trying to trap Jesus into denying the authority of the civil law in order to have grounds to arrest Him. They were not the least bit concerned about the woman or her transgression. According to the civil law, there were hundreds of ways a woman could be charged with adultery, including just looking at another man than her husband. When we say adultery, we have certain agregious activity in mind, but for the Jew of that day, the charge of adultery was a convient way to get rid of a wife who did not have your dinner ready when you got home from a hard day of being religous at the temple. The penalty of a such spurious charge of adultery was death by stoning! A rather harsh penalty for a late dinner, but, never the less the legal penalty according to their law. The men brought the woman to Jesus figuring that he would deny the legal claim of adultery with the resulting stoning. Jesus, in fact, did not deny their claim based on the law, but instead acknowledged it, by saying, "Let the stones fly". The fact that he showed them a higher law, and exercised soverign charity toward the woman is another issue. He did not deny the right of the civil law to exercise capital punishment, which would support the equal right of the civil law today to also exercise capital punisment. This would be in conflict with the liberal stand against capital punisment, and support the conservative position today, which gets to the heart of your contention regarding the issue of capital law today. There were many other issues being addressed in this great story, which probably included the point that noone is without sin. However that is not the only point, and certainly not the point regarding the issue of capital punishment today. I would love to examine those other points with you at some time in the future, but let us not be distracted at this time. I will stop babbling at this point and let you comment, and keep the second issue of your post until later. TnT |
On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Since you obviously don't get to define how God manifests himself, God does, I'm making no such definitions. God can manifest mimself in any way He chooses. However, there is no documentation in the Bible of God manifesting Himself in any way that is deemed to be Himself. All manifestations are as something else - a man, a burning bush, etc. You don't get it, you never will. Mike |
On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Canada [...] prove that Really? Please provide a reference that clearly proves that guns in Canada have been confiscated as a result of registration. If it hasn't, which I doubt, it will. So you are making your claims based on predictions of the future now? Funny, you were giving that as an _example_. Since when is something that may or may not occur in the future an example? More lies and bull**** from weiser. You don't ever bother with the truth, do you? Mike |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... BCITORGB wrote: By the by, I am in shock and awe that the US is no longer executing children! Welcome to the 20th century. |
Michael Daly wrote: On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: Since you obviously don't get to define how God manifests himself, God does, I'm making no such definitions. God can manifest mimself in any way He chooses. However, there is no documentation in the Bible of God manifesting Himself in any way that is deemed to be Himself. All manifestations are as something else - a man, a burning bush, etc. You don't get it, you never will. Mike Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose, how would you know that it is God that did this? TnT |
On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
For example, I know for a fact that you may not "consent" to being killed, even in the privacy of your own home. Thus, you are full of ****. Poor snotty - did I make you cranky? The context of the discussion is sexual behavior. Deal with that. I know, that means not lying, but at least you can try. In any sort of civilized system, an individual's decisions are circumscribed by the greater needs of the society in which he lives. If all decisions are the responsibility of the greater society, that pretty much eliminates all your claims about freedom. If an individual cannot conduct his most private life according to his or her own rules, then they have no freedom. We're talking about sexual behavior here - between consenting adults - in case you plan on bringing up some ridiculous analogy. The state cannot take away a right that doesn't exist. What are the rights that exist? What holy stone are they cast into? What makes you the arbiter of what constitutes a right? Lets see - there are all those claims you make that are completely bogus. Sez you. No, you make the bogus claims - Galileo and Newton were considered fools by their peers - bogus. Scientists generally thought the Earth was flat - bogus. Height within a species is a sign of a morphological difference - bogus. H. sapiens didn't always walk upright - bogus. Your fantasy "theory of evolution" is an accepted scientific theory - bogus. Want more? You throw out any claim, hoping that those who read it will be at least as stupid as you are and believe it. However, those of us that are smarter than you will always take you to task for your bull****. There are your attempts to ignore what is said and warp the statements into something they are not. Don't blame me if you are imprecise in your erudition. I say one cannot prove either that God exists or does not exist. You say that means that I say God does not exist. Hardly a case of me not writing clearly enough. I say fundies are fools for wasting their time with ridiculous "theories" of creationism. You say that I say anyone that believes in God is a fool. Again - not my writing that's the problem - it's your twisted mind at work. There are your deliberate misquotes. Such as? See above. You are a liar and behave in an extremely dishonest manner. Yet you try to present yourself as some holier-than-thou master logician. Bull****. Mike |
On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
If I wasn't any good, nobody would reply. We don't reply because you're good - we reply to reduce the level of bull**** in the newsgroup. Every time you post, misinformation is spread. Mike |
On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:
Or are you saying that it is in fact impossible, based on the separation of the spiritual realm, and the world where we now dwell, and that we are just blowing smoke if we claim such an event has ever, It's fairly simple, in fact. The page you linked to is interesting, as it demonstrates my point. There is no description of God there. There is the ambiguous reference to making man in His likeness and image, but, as I was taught in grade school, that _may_ only be a reference to our mental capacities and ability to choose, not that our physical form is the same. No direct reference in the Bible indicates that we have the same general physical form. Those that are said to have seen God did not describe Him. If we are to try to prove God's existence in the physical world, we have to be aware of His presence in the physical world as a physical being. The Bible does not offer any evidence of what to expect. Nor does it show that He is always around in physical form but, rather, suggests that He chooses to reveal Himself only on occasion. Since we don't know what to look for noe when to look, we are at a serious disadvantage. The spiritual world cannot be touched or felt. We have no device to detect it. People who claim to be in touch with the spiritual world (spiritualists) are considered frauds. Belief in spiritualism, within the Roman Catholic Church for example, is wrong. This is not the same thing as getting in touch with the spiritual world by, say, praying. That, however, is a one-way street. Any possible results of praying are covered under the vague "mysterious ways" and cannot be used reliably as an experimental result. If you want to move into another religion and discuss worldly gods, then the situation changes. However, the Judeo-Christian God is presented in the Bible and that's what we have to work with. or will ever occur? I cannot claim to know the future. I leave that to fools like weiser. Mike |
On 2-Mar-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:
Capital punishment (or not)? What would Jesus choose? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I think that's already been documented. :-) Mike |
On 2-Mar-2005, "rick" wrote:
Sure they are, but the sites I have provided prove that it is the wait for treatment that caused the deaths. Ahh,, no they didn't. Now who's lying? Mike |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 2-Mar-2005, "rick" wrote: Sure they are, but the sites I have provided prove that it is the wait for treatment that caused the deaths. Ahh,, no they didn't. Now who's lying? ==================== Yes, they do. So that would be you. Mike |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message link.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 10:18 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 5:59 PM: snip... You're telling me there aren't poor people in the US in isolated or slum areas where they have a hard time getting a scan at their convenience? Get real. ==================== 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. No one is waiting for treatment. ====================== Yes, they are. Weeks months and years. Even you have agreed to that, now. Nono. Stop being dishonest. I never said no one in Canada is waiting for treatment. ================ Yes, you did. No, I didn't. I respond to your goofy claim that the people in your example were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment when in fact they were all in current receipt of care. Stop being such a scumbag. You owe me an apology but your are too weak and too much of coward to do it. ====================== Nope. Where's yours, liarman? I responded to your allegation that the people featured in the story were waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all persons in Canada. ===================== No, you replied that no one is waiting for treatment. liarman. You owe me an apology, but you are too weak and too big of a coward to do it. +================= No, I don't. But it seems you have forgotten about your, eh liarman. Proof that people are dying in waiting lines in Canada have been presented to you, yet you are still spewing about a lie you have already taken back. Why is that, liarman? Don't want to discuss your continued willful ignorance? What happened is you blathered on about the people in Newfoundland waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and I responded that they are not waiting for treatment. And they aren't. So stop being a scumbag, stop being a coward, suck it up and apologize. Or are you just too weak? ======================== ROTFLMAO You really are this desperate now, aren't you, liarman? I'm not the one that was blathering about it. Yeah, you were. ===================== No fool, I wasn't. It was one site out of several I posted. And it was the only time I brought it up. You were rambling on about how people were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment in the story about people in Newfoundland. They aren't waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment, and I told you so. Then you tried to say that I was stating that no one in Canada waits for anything, which is not what I said at all. You are a scumbag. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying, and still are, liarman. You did make that claim fool, because the post you were repliying to was all about waiting for health care in Canada. You have now decided to tap dance by claiming it was about only one site, and one example. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message link.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 6:01 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message ink.net... "BCITORGB" wrote in message ps.com... KMAN, I was pleased with the effort Tink took to get a handle on this situation. And, from my own perspective, I've done some reading about various systems and have at least a passing acquaintance with a variety of European models (I now know the difference between the Beveridge and the Bismark approaches to healthcare funding). In that sense, all of this has been useful for me. It's too bad rick could never see the value in such discourse. ==================== LOL I tried, fool. All I got was a bunch of jingoistic chest-thumping lies. Perhaps you should stop telling them, then. ===================== I didn't lie, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman? Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet? I'm not lying about anything. ===================== Yes, you are, liarman. People are on long waiting lists in Canada, and some of those people die while waiting for that treatment. Sites have been presented to you that prove this, yet you insist on your chest-thumping lies. Why is that liarman? Haven't quite gotten your refutaions together yet? 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, and still are, liarman. You did make that claim fool, because the post you were repliying to was all about waiting for health care in Canada. You have now decided to tap dance by claiming it was about only one site, and one example. |
"KMAN" wrote in message ... "rick" wrote in message link.net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 10:19 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 3/2/05 6:03 PM: snip.. You've captured it perfectly. I got so frustrated with rick's spew that I tried to pin him down and make him focus more on his wild claims about Canadian health care, and all that happened instead is he took the dishonest tactic of picking on the wording of my attempts to make him focus. ===================== No, there was no misleading by me of your lies, er wording, liarman. You made direct declarative statements that you cannot back up. I focused entirely on your lies that no 1) no one is waiting for treatment in Canada, Scumbag. You know very well what I declared was that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting for 2 1/2 years for treatment - the lie YOU were telling. But you are too big of a coward to admit it. ====================== Nope. that's not what you said Yes it is. I responded to your allegation that the people featured in the story were waiting for treatment. They aren't. And you are a scumbag for taking my statement out of that context and trying to say that I was referring to all persons in Canada. ======================== Nope. you claimed no one was waiting for treatment No. I said that the people in Newfoundland were not waiting for treatment as you had falsely claimed. Your refusal to apolgize for your dishonesty is further cementing your reputation as a coward and scumbag. ============================ Nope. That's what you are trying to explain away now I told you the people in Newfoundland were not waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment and I was right. ============== No, you weren't. You were lying as usual. Their treatment did not start for at least 2 1/2 years. You are a scumbag, and a coward for not admitting your dishonesty. ========================== That was but one example to show that you were lying, and still are, liarman. You did make that claim fool, because the post you were repliying to was all about waiting for health care in Canada. You have now decided to tap dance by claiming it was about only one site, and one example. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:17 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com