PDA

View Full Version : We must pass the bill to see what's in it update



LWW
09-24-2011, 07:53 AM
Who want's to carry the current regime's water on THIS ONE (http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/09/obamare-hhs-rule-would-give-government-everybody-s-health-records)?

Soflasnapper
09-25-2011, 09:30 AM
The representative from Kansas (author of record of these claims, from the link) starts with a lie and continues downhill from there.

To begin with, CONGRESS didn't need to pass it so that THEY could know what was in it. Then-Speaker Pelosi's remarks to something close to that effect were that it had to be passed so the PUBLIC would find out. Her quote says, 'so YOU can know what's in it,' (paraphrase), and she was not speaking to members of Congress, but private individuals.

Secondly, the language of the proposed rule (which has to go through public comments periods and other processes before it becomes a binding regulation) calls for providing records information for CLAIMS, from ISSUERS of insurance, who do not have patients. There is no call for PROVIDERS of care (doctors, hospitals, clinics, etc.) to provide records of all their patients, but of INSURANCE COMPANIES to provide CLAIMANTS medical records, under an extension of HIPPA confidentiality treatment.

If interested, see the beginning of this discussion on page 11 on the link provided by the Congressman.

This is the citation of the beginning of the discussion area:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 5. Data Collection Under Risk
Adjustment (§ 153.340)

As described above, a robust risk
adjustment process requires data to
support the determination of an
individual’s risk score and the
corresponding plan and State averages.
In paragraph (a) we propose that a State,
or HHS on behalf of the State, is
responsible for collecting the data for
use in determining individual risk
scores.
HHS considered three possibilities for
data collection: (1) A centralized
approach in which <span style='font-size: 14pt'>issuers submit raw
claims data sets to HHS</span>; (2) an
intermediate State-level approach in
which <span style='font-size: 14pt'>issuers submit raw claims data
sets </span>to the State government, or the
entity responsible for administering the
risk adjustment process at the State
level; and (3) <span style='font-size: 14pt'>a distributed approach in
which each issuer must reformat its own
data to map correctly to the risk
assessment database and then pass on
self-determined individual risk scores
and plan averages</span> to the entity
responsible for assessing risk
adjustment charges and payments.
</div></div>

This shows 'claims' records are required, not ALL PATIENT RECORDS, as the Congressman falsely claims.

Moreover, the last option (please read 3. above) requires NO patient records be transferred whatsoever, for claimants or anyone else.

LWW
09-25-2011, 10:54 AM
Somehow I knew when I asked for someone to carry the current regime's water, it would be you.

LWW
09-25-2011, 10:58 AM
You aren't that stupid.

Raw data is just that, everything and unfiltered.

And, a visit to the doctor for a stubbed toe covered under an insurance policy is "raw claims data" ... and you should read your vaunted "3" again.

Either you are illiterate to what it says, or you are counting on others to be illiterate and believe your gibberish.

Stretch
09-25-2011, 11:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Somehow I knew when I asked for someone to carry the current regime's water, it would be you. </div></div>

....and he's doing a great job, unlike yourself who tries to carry the Republican water with a bucket full of holes. St.

Soflasnapper
09-25-2011, 01:11 PM
Seems to me that even raw data sets might omit personal information, such as name or SS# or address (beyond zip code, city or state).

Even if they do not, I'm not exactly sure on what basis this is to be feared.

Mainly, health information was a problem when there were pre-existing exclusions of coverage that people wanted to keep private, or certain status that was embarrassing, such as HIV positive or other STD status.

HIPPA covers the release of all of these as a significant crime, and ending the pre-existing condition exclusion is one of the features of this law, so...

LWW
09-25-2011, 02:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seems to me that even raw data sets might omit personal information, such as name or SS# or address (beyond zip code, city or state).

Even if they do not, I'm not exactly sure on what basis this is to be feared.

Mainly, health information was a problem when there were pre-existing exclusions of coverage that people wanted to keep private, or certain status that was embarrassing, such as HIV positive or other STD status.

HIPPA covers the release of all of these as a significant crime, and ending the pre-existing condition exclusion is one of the features of this law, so... </div></div>

Do you even know what "RAW DATA" means?

As to fearing the state knowing everything about you ... to a statist that would be nirvana.

To a true liberal, such as myself, that is what the right to privacy is all about.

Soflasnapper
09-25-2011, 04:22 PM
Here's (http://explore.data.gov/catalog/raw/) a link to 3,529 raw data sets, from the federal government.

Do you find these data in the hands of the government threatening to you? How about others who can freely download any or all of these?

Which if any of these do you think contain personal and identifying information?

Stretch
09-25-2011, 05:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Here's (http://explore.data.gov/catalog/raw/) a link to 3,529 raw data sets, from the federal government.

Do you find these data in the hands of the government threatening to you? How about others who can freely download any or all of these?

Which if any of these do you think contain personal and identifying information? </div></div>

Let the wiggling, twisting, lieing, and photoshop cartooning begin in response to your question...... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif St.

LWW
09-26-2011, 12:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The representative from Kansas (author of record of these claims, from the link) starts with a lie and continues downhill from there.

To begin with, CONGRESS didn't need to pass it so that THEY could know what was in it. Then-Speaker Pelosi's remarks to something close to that effect were that it had to be passed so the PUBLIC would find out. Her quote says, 'so YOU can know what's in it,' (paraphrase), and she was not speaking to members of Congress, but private individuals.</div></div>

Are you honestly asking us to believe the congress knew what was in the bill when they passed it?

Here's a hint ... they admit they didn't. Conyers even admitted he wouldn't understand it if he did write it.

Next ridiculous claim to cover for the regime please?

Soflasnapper
09-26-2011, 02:39 PM
Conyers mentioned that the staff language is highly technical, and that nobody but the staff could understand that very much, yes.

That has to do with the changes this new law made in other laws, and so, every law it changed is shown in the new law, citing the law number, the paragraph number, and 'replace that with this,' etc.

That's entirely different from saying the text of the bill wasn't available, or that it didn't clearly lay out what it was doing as to changing the status quo ante law.

eg8r
09-26-2011, 02:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To begin with, CONGRESS didn't need to pass it so that THEY could know what was in it. Then-Speaker Pelosi's remarks to something close to that effect were that it had to be passed so the PUBLIC would find out. Her quote says, 'so YOU can know what's in it,' (paraphrase), and she was not speaking to members of Congress, but private individuals.
</div></div>Do you find this acceptable? They have to pass it before we find out what is in it?

eg8r

LWW
09-26-2011, 05:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Conyers mentioned that the staff language is highly technical, and that nobody but the staff could understand that very much, yes.

That has to do with the changes this new law made in other laws, and so, every law it changed is shown in the new law, citing the law number, the paragraph number, and 'replace that with this,' etc.

That's entirely different from saying the text of the bill wasn't available, or that it didn't clearly lay out what it was doing as to changing the status quo ante law.

</div></div>

When was it available?

LWW
09-26-2011, 05:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To begin with, CONGRESS didn't need to pass it so that THEY could know what was in it. Then-Speaker Pelosi's remarks to something close to that effect were that it had to be passed so the PUBLIC would find out. Her quote says, 'so YOU can know what's in it,' (paraphrase), and she was not speaking to members of Congress, but private individuals.
</div></div>Do you find this acceptable? They have to pass it before we find out what is in it?

eg8r </div></div>

Obviously he does ... when dear leader gives a command, a leftbot will surely obey.

Soflasnapper
09-26-2011, 06:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To begin with, CONGRESS didn't need to pass it so that THEY could know what was in it. Then-Speaker Pelosi's remarks to something close to that effect were that it had to be passed so the PUBLIC would find out. Her quote says, 'so YOU can know what's in it,' (paraphrase), and she was not speaking to members of Congress, but private individuals.
</div></div>Do you find this acceptable? They have to pass it before we find out what is in it?

eg8r </div></div>

The rest of her quote read, '...away from the controversies' (paraphrasing).

No, it is bad for the country to have commentators lying their asses off about bills' contents and confusing the hell out of the public. It should be different from that, I agree.

But since that was their political tactic-- making things up out of whole cloth, or willfully misinterpreting the statutory language, or using extremely ignorant persons' takes as expert opinions-- unfortunately, it was inevitable in this and other cases.

If on the other hand you are asking whether an average or below average citizen can comprehend such comprehensive legislation, and whether they shouldn't be able to, the answer is likely no.

Soflasnapper
09-26-2011, 06:39 PM
When was it available?

Every prospective law is required to 'be read.' Read several times in open hearings, typically.

Sometimes they waive the reading(s).

Bills are available no later than the time of their reading(s), or the reading(s) waiver.

By the time they get to the floor for a vote, they've already been finalized some time out of the committee markup sessions, and well before the vote in committee.

LWW
09-27-2011, 02:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When was it available?

Every prospective law is required to 'be read.' Read several times in open hearings, typically.

Sometimes they waive the reading(s).

Bills are available no later than the time of their reading(s), or the reading(s) waiver.

By the time they get to the floor for a vote, they've already been finalized some time out of the committee markup sessions, and well before the vote in committee. </div></div>

So you concede that the bill was never read and that the congress had to pass it to find out what was in it months later ... while insisting congress didn't have to pass it to find out what was in it months late?

How typical.

Qtec
09-27-2011, 03:08 AM
Who read the Patriot Act?

Answer....nobody.

It sounded good.

If you voted against the patriot Act, does that make you a non-patriot.

What would RW pundits say? What did they say?



Q

LWW
09-27-2011, 05:12 AM
Try to stay on topic snoopy.

Qtec
09-27-2011, 05:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Try to stay on topic snoopy. </div></div>

Now THAT IS funny.

Q

Qtec
09-27-2011, 05:37 AM
OK, lets see. You begin with...

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Who want's to carry the current regime's water on THIS ONE?</div></div>


SoFla comes back with,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style="color: #CC0000"> The representative from Kansas (author of record of these claims, from the link) starts with a lie and continues downhill from there.</span></div></div>


..and your rebuttal is??????????????? .. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>All opinion and no facts.</span>

<u><span style='font-size: 20pt'>Here is your entire contribution to this thread.</span>
</u>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Either you are illiterate to what it says, or you are counting on others to be illiterate and believe your gibberish.
Do you even know what "RAW DATA" means?

As to fearing the state knowing everything about you ... to a statist that would be nirvana.

To a true liberal, such as myself, that is what the right to privacy is all about.
Are you honestly asking us to believe the congress knew what was in the bill when they passed it?

Here's a hint ... they admit they didn't. Conyers even admitted he wouldn't understand it if he did write it.

Next ridiculous claim to cover for the regime please?
When was it available?
Obviously he does ... when dear leader gives a command, a leftbot will surely obey.
So you concede that the bill was never read and that the congress had to pass it to find out what was in it months later ... while insisting congress didn't have to pass it to find out what was in it months late?

How typical.
Try to stay on topic snoopy.

</div></div>


Feel ashamed? You should do. This hardly enhances you reputation as a great mind on the internet. Its obvious to any intelligent person that you can't present an argument to defend your POV.

How can one have an adult conversation with a non-adult?



Q

Soflasnapper
09-27-2011, 08:50 AM
So you concede that the bill was never read and that the congress had to pass it to find out what was in it months later[...]

Hardly. I am claiming the opposite of that, which accounts for the rest of your sentence, which you find perplexing.

eg8r
09-27-2011, 12:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If on the other hand you are asking whether an average or below average citizen can comprehend such comprehensive legislation, and whether they shouldn't be able to, the answer is likely no. </div></div>Actually what I am getting at is that this was yet another broken promise by Obama. We did not have the opportunity to read the bill (if we wanted to) in the promised amount of time. Whether we wanted to know what was being voted on or not did not matter this time because it was not made available.

eg8r

LWW
09-27-2011, 03:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If on the other hand you are asking whether an average or below average citizen can comprehend such comprehensive legislation, and whether they shouldn't be able to, the answer is likely no.

</div></div>

And that is the key difference between you and I.

I believe that a higher percentage of the general population could follow it than members of congress.

You believe that we are all unworthy and need omnipotent and omniscient high priests and priestesses of a godking to handle it.

Soflasnapper
09-27-2011, 06:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If on the other hand you are asking whether an average or below average citizen can comprehend such comprehensive legislation, and whether they shouldn't be able to, the answer is likely no. </div></div>Actually what I am getting at is that this was yet another broken promise by Obama. We did not have the opportunity to read the bill (if we wanted to) in the promised amount of time. Whether we wanted to know what was being voted on or not did not matter this time because it was not made available.

eg8r </div></div>

Well you are probably misremembering his pledge.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised that once a bill was passed by Congress, the White House would post it online for five days before he signed it. NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/us/politics/22pledge.html); link to video of him saying this available there</div></div>

He's done this a little, but mainly has not done it (for a long enough period of time to honor the pledge, at least). Whether he did it for the health care reform act or not, don't know, and perhaps not. However, it would be a little late in the game for people to influence their Congressional representatives on a bill at that time, as it would have already been passed.

Soflasnapper
09-27-2011, 06:39 PM
And that is the key difference between you and <s>I</s> me (besides knowledge of English grammar).

[You] believe that a higher percentage of the general population could follow it than members of congress. (I think that's an ignorant belief.)

You believe [that I believe] that we are all unworthy and need omnipotent and omniscient high priests and priestesses of a godking to handle it, and I believe this and many of your beliefs are screwy, without foundation, and frankly, bizarre.

Besides being screwy, this is simply incoherent on its face. Nobody in Congress works for the POTUS. Separate branches of government, and all, y'know?

I also foreswear belief in godkings, or omnipotent or omniscient beings of this world.

LWW
09-28-2011, 02:04 AM
I don't think you even fooled yourself with that little rant.

Sev
09-28-2011, 05:43 AM
There is no reason for the government to have an accumulation of personal information on law abiding citizens. It has far to much already.

LWW
09-28-2011, 06:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is no reason for the government to have an accumulation of personal information on law abiding citizens. It has far to much already. </div></div>

If you believe that we have a population of citizens, that's true.

If you believe we have a population of subjects, that's blasphemy.

eg8r
09-28-2011, 07:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Whether he did it for the health care reform act or not, don't know, and perhaps not.</div></div>It was a NOT.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-28-2011, 10:46 AM
Because of the nature of his pledge, even had he honored it, it would have made zero difference. It would have had to be put up BEFORE CONGRESS voted on it to allow citizens an effective period of time to weigh in to influence the Congress.

That's exactly what the (new) House said it would do with regard to House bill votes. Which would work far better, if only they would honor THAT pledge. Which they violated immediately, and in serial fashion since pledging it.

eg8r
09-28-2011, 11:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because of the nature of his pledge, even had he honored it, it would have made zero difference.</div></div>Basically what you are saying then is that he felt his voters were stupid and did not notice that by him making this promise it wouldn't change anything anyways? If this was true then I would agree with you and him that his voters are stupid.

I believe he made the declaration with the intent to allow Congress to put something on his desk. He would then give the public some time to look at it also. If there was no public backlash he would sign it (providing he agreed also). But we all know politicians are liars and put themselves on a pedestal so maybe your assertion that he felt his voters are idiots actually is correct.

eg8r

LWW
09-28-2011, 11:09 AM
In the logic of the left ... dear leader kept all the promises he intended to keep, so didn't lie.

Meanwhile they are busy convincing their own selves that reading bills before voting on them is bad.

Soflasnapper
09-29-2011, 07:55 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because of the nature of his pledge, even had he honored it, it would have made zero difference.</div></div>Basically what you are saying then is that he felt his voters were stupid and did not notice that by him making this promise it wouldn't change anything anyways? If this was true then I would agree with you and him that his voters are stupid.

I believe he made the declaration with the intent to allow Congress to put something on his desk. He would then give the public some time to look at it also. If there was no public backlash he would sign it (providing he agreed also). But we all know politicians are liars and put themselves on a pedestal so maybe your assertion that he felt his voters are idiots actually is correct.

eg8r </div></div>

Yes, I do think it was a kind of sop to the ignoratii. Sounded good, burnished up the 'transparency' brand, but was really more of a nothing-burger. Window dressing, for show. (Another example of how I always and on all occasions 'slavishly defend dear leader,' according to some. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif)

Now, the HOUSE pledge taken either in the last campaign, or immediately pledged upon taking the House majority, WAS slightly more toothsome. They aren't keeping their pledge, either.

To no particular notice or condemnation from the right that I have seen. Can you correct me on this, or provide yourself at least one condemnation of the GOP House's failure to live up to their more meaningful pledge?

eg8r
09-30-2011, 08:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To no particular notice or condemnation from the right that I have seen. Can you correct me on this</div></div>What was the pledge?

eg8r

LWW
09-30-2011, 09:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... I always and on all occasions 'slavishly defend dear leader,' ...</div></div>

That's an over simplification.

What has went entirely over your head was that Pelosi's statement was a massive Freudian slip.

No matter how many times the bill would mhave been red, what was "IN THE BILL" was entirely unknown to most members of congress as it was chock full of "AS THE HHS SECRETARY SHALL DECIDE ..." clauses.

The bill "HAD TO BE PASSED" to "FIND OUT WHAT'S IN IT" because the actual contents of the bill were a closely guarded secret.

I have the intellectual ability and courage to see the scam for what it is while "... I always and on all occasions 'slavishly defend dear leader,' ..." is a more accurate description of your philosophy.

Gayle in MD
09-30-2011, 10:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To no particular notice or condemnation from the right that I have seen. Can you correct me on this</div></div>What was the pledge?

eg8r </div></div>

Can you READ???


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It would have had to be put up BEFORE CONGRESS voted on it to allow citizens an effective period of time to weigh in to influence the Congress.

That's exactly what the (new) House said it would do with regard to House bill votes. Which would work far better, if only they would honor THAT pledge. Which they violated immediately, and in serial fashion since pledging it. </div></div>

And, in this case, you're statements are extraordinarily false.

During the time of the committees, The White House kept updated information on their site, throughout.

The Committees, were filmed, LIVE on C-Span.

The Republicans were given months upon months to read the bill, and complained for months, about the two thousand pages, in spite of the FACT, that they NEVER read bills themselves, their aides read everything, and it doesn't matter how many pages are in any given bill, because they all have at least a dozen aides.

I used to be an Aide, so I know what I'm talking about.

hence, Republicans did what they always do, thay conflated what is par for the course, into a huige lie about the Bill, and lied about what was in it, as they were actually saying they hadn't read it, at the same time.

If they didn't read it, then why were thhey telloing the President, over and ovver again, to throw it all out, and start all over?

The fact is if any of them didn't read it, it was because they failed to do what is always done, give it to their dozen or so aides, to read, and time went along.

Noting was hidden, and nothing was in it, that Republoicans didn't know in advance, would likely be in it, unless, of course, they lied for how many months of negotiations? Most of the year, bitching about what was in it throughout&gt;?

That makes absolutely no logical sense, at all.

Now, how many pages do you think a dozen people, or more, can read in a day?

That Bill was probably the most scrutinized pieces of legislation, to ever pass the House and the Senate, AND Republicans lied non stop about what was in it, to the very end, and They're STILL lying about what was in it, as one of my thread proves today.

There is no limit to the effort made by you righties, to muddy up the waters of reality.

Bah Bah Bah...have some more Kool Aid!

G.

eg8r
09-30-2011, 11:34 AM
LOL, another looney rant.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-30-2011, 11:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, another looney rant.

eg8r </div></div>

No recourse but to make another attack, I see.

Typical.

LWW
09-30-2011, 01:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, another looney rant.

eg8r </div></div>

No recourse but to make another attack, I see.

Typical. </div></div>

Why do you always claim the truth to be an attack?

Truth be known ... you are the most brainwashed moonbat lunatic I have ever discussed anything with.

Gayle in MD
09-30-2011, 02:09 PM
What has went????

OMG! How do you have the nerve to point out any errors made by others on the forum!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
That's an over simplification.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>What has went </span>entirely over your head was that Pelosi's statement was a massive Freudian slip.

No matter how many times the bill would <span style='font-size: 17pt'>mhave </span>been <span style='font-size: 17pt'>red</span>, what was "IN THE BILL" was entirely unknown to most members of congress as it was chock full of "AS THE <span style='font-size: 17pt'>HHS</span> SECRETARY SHALL DECIDE ..." clauses.

The bill "HAD TO BE PASSED" to "FIND OUT WHAT'S IN IT" because the actual contents of the bill were a closely guarded secret.

I have the intellectual ability and courage to see the scam for what it is while "... I always and on all occasions 'slavishly defend dear leader,' ..." is a more accurate description of your philosophy. </div></div>

Just Brilliant!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
09-30-2011, 02:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OMG! How do you have the nerve to point out any errors made by others on thie forum!
</div></div>

LOL, in your childishness to jump in and make fun of lww you forgot to spell check your own post.

Just brilliant!
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-30-2011, 02:26 PM
LOl, in your impatience to throw out another pointless, childish dig, you couldn't wait until I was finished with editing my post, to jump in with yet another display of your own petty personality!

G.

eg8r
09-30-2011, 02:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOl, in your impatience to throw out another pointless, childish dig</div></div>I am glad you recognize your childishness for what it really was, a pointless childish dig.

My impatience? You foolishly hit reply instead of checking your "work". Next time maybe you will think twice before making fun of someone else.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-30-2011, 02:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOl, in your impatience to throw out another pointless, childish dig</div></div>I am glad you recognize your childishness for what it really was, a pointless childish dig.

My impatience? You foolishly hit reply instead of checking your "work". Next time maybe you will think twice before making fun of someone else.

eg8r </div></div>

Next time maybe you will think twice, before calling people murderers for doing nothing more than you have done yourself!

G.

eg8r
09-30-2011, 02:46 PM
Why would I do that? I have never murdered a fetus/baby. You really have hard on for this but you are the only pro-murderer here. Well except for llotter.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-30-2011, 03:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why would I do that? I have never murdered a fetus/baby. You really have hard on for this but you are the only pro-murderer here. Well except for llotter.

eg8r </div></div>

Or, so now it's a Fetus/baby? Before it was a Baby, not a fetus!

You have if you used the Birth Control Pills, any length of time, OR the IUD.

I am not pro murder. You are the one who has mudered BABIES! Remember? Your term for a fetus, is a BABY?


So just drop the Bull**** accusations about murder, Ed. You are more of a murderer, according to your own stated standards, than I could ever be!

I never used the Pill, or an IUD.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>So just drop the Bull**** accusations about murder!</span>
G.

eg8r
10-01-2011, 10:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or, so now it's a Fetus/baby? Before it was a Baby, not a fetus!
</div></div>I thought I would use words your simple mind recognized. I guess that was too much.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
10-02-2011, 09:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Or, so now it's a Fetus/baby? Before it was a Baby, not a fetus!
</div></div>I thought I would use words your simple mind recognized. I guess that was too much.

eg8r </div></div>

No, you thought you'd get away with what you usually try to do, change terms round, in another weak effort to claim that you are right, when in fact, your hypocrisy or ignorance of the facts, has been exposed.

You and LWW are the pros at that sort of intentional reversal, and denial of reality.

G.

eg8r
10-02-2011, 04:06 PM
No, I have always stated they were one in the same. Which is why every time you state a fetus is not a baby I say you are lying and pro-baby murder.

eg8r

LWW
10-03-2011, 04:22 AM
TRANSLATED:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/ObsessionLWW.jpg

Qtec
10-03-2011, 05:19 AM
I didn't think it possible but you have reached a new low.


Are you proud of yourself? Posting such pics?

Explain the intellectual content? What are you trying to say?


When you meet your maker and he says

"LWW, what did you do in your last years on Earth?"

What are you going to say?


"I was beating liberals down on the internet? Being a total A-Hole at times. Sometimes vindictive."

Good resume.

Q...best of luck.



Q

LWW
10-03-2011, 05:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Explain the intellectual content? What are you trying to say?

Q </div></div>

That aitch and charlotte are cyber stalkers who will never cease with their obsession to destroy anyone who opposes their leftist agenda.

Oh, and that you are now their devoted pit poodle while woofie is on the ineligible list.

Qtec
10-03-2011, 05:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh, and that you are now their devoted pit poodle while woofie is on the ineligible list.


</div></div> <span style='font-size: 17pt'>There you go again!!!!!! Making $hit up! </span>


Where did I mention <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"THEY"?</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>Did you read my post?</span>


Quote me.


This isn't about 'THEM' its about <span style='font-size: 17pt'>'you'</span>!!!!!!!!!!

Q

Stretch
10-03-2011, 06:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Explain the intellectual content? What are you trying to say?

Q </div></div>

That aitch and charlotte are cyber stalkers who will never cease with their obsession to destroy anyone who opposes their leftist agenda.

Oh, and that you are now their devoted pit poodle while woofie is on the ineligible list. </div></div>

Of course that's what a pic of a nude, blond, fat lady on a bed means. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif That's why we trust you to interpret the news for us. lmao. NOT! Thanks for prooving your mental instability again. Ever thought of a job as a lab guinea pig? I'm sure some would be interested, we're not. St.

Qtec
10-03-2011, 06:47 AM
Let me make it so simple that even you can understand it.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>What is the connection</span> between,

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>'fat naked Lady' </span>

and

'<span style='font-size: 14pt'>cyber stalkers who will never cease with their obsession to destroy anyone who opposes their leftist agenda.</span>'..???????????

Q

Gayle in MD
10-03-2011, 07:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me make it so simple that even you can understand it.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>What is the connection</span> between,

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>'fat naked Lady' </span>

and

'<span style='font-size: 14pt'>cyber stalkers who will never cease with their obsession to destroy anyone who opposes their leftist agenda.</span>'..???????????

Q </div></div>

Who on this forum actually did go out of his way, AND break the law, to try to destroy someone who opposes his RW Bull****!

He claims he is being stalked, while he continues to target and stalk and lie and slander, without abandon.

Sicko!

Stretch
10-03-2011, 08:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me make it so simple that even you can understand it.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>What is the connection</span> between,

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>'fat naked Lady' </span>

and

'<span style='font-size: 14pt'>cyber stalkers who will never cease with their obsession to destroy anyone who opposes their leftist agenda.</span>'..???????????

Q </div></div>

Who on this forum actually did go out of his way, AND break the law, to try to destroy someone who opposes his RW Bull****!

He claims he is being stalked, while he continues to target and stalk and lie and slander, without abandon.

Sicko! </div></div>

He's too insane to even make a coherent argument anymore. He is unemployed for a very good reason which has nothing to do with the economy. St.