On 3/31/2010 10:57 AM, DaveS wrote:
On Mar 29, 3:32 pm, David wrote:
'Tis the sound of the chickens coming home to roost:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/...ty-in-the-red/

And now our *health care* is in charge of these people. God save us.

Louie


Dave, how can this be true? When you say "our" healthcare, that is not
really accurate is it? You're covered by "Tricare" as are most
retirees and military.
And you know that TRICARE . . .
1. Already EXCEEDS the standards of the new health reform law, and
2. TRICARE WILL NOT BE TRANSFERRED to the new reform set up
3. That TRICARE operates and under a separate administration and legal
framework.

You probably didn't read any of the more than a dozen notices, emails
etc going back 2-3 months that quite clearly made this point to
everybody with the possible exception of Messrs Beck and Limbesmerch.
So here is the citation that will catch you up. (Because why else
would you pass on bad info intentionally? Certainly not for reasons of
blind ideological radicalism.)

http://www.tricare.mil/

So at least you personally will not need God to save you from the
Democrat/Communist plot to make sure that the next generation of
working people will be healthy enough to fight this Nation's battles,
raise this Nation's food, and build this Nation's economy,

Dave

I don't know if I'll get this right from memory, but maybe I'll be close
enough....


Rules for political debate when you're on shaky ground:

1. Make up facts to support your arguments (lie)
2. Try to re-frame the argument on better terms for your side.
3. Change the subject so you can frame the terms of a new argument.
4. Change a fact based argument to an emotional one where logic loses.
5. In all cases, belittle your opponent's intelligence, beliefs,
and morals. (shoot the messenger)


Based on the above criteria... hmmmm... let's see.....

Well, you definitely nailed #3 since bringing up Tricare in this
context is clearly a red herring and does not address the subject
of the OP's link.

And you sort of used #4, though in an elusive manner.

On #5, you clearly failed to stomp on the OP's morals, though you
were able to question his literacy and get a dig in at his religious
beliefs (if any).

Sorry, I have give your efforts at proper political posturing a
dismal 3.5 score. (out of 10).

Tsk. Please do better.


\s

--
"There is no use in your walking five miles to fish when you can depend
on being just as unsuccessful near home." M. Twain