Cluuuuck, cluck, cluuuuk

On 3/31/2010 8:03 PM, Giles wrote:
On Mar 31, 9:01 pm, Steve wrote:
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

You ain't from around here, are ya?

No. Thank goodness. It seems some of the posters here would probably
have trouble remembering how to breath if they couldn't consult the
government approved manual that came with their permission slip.


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

And what, one might ask, is more tedious than a poorly understood and
wildly inappropriate quote appended to EVERY bit of tripe served up in
the hope that it will lend some sort of cachet?

g.

nibble

Tedious it may well be. Poorly understood? Perhaps. Possibly I will tack
something different on when it occurs to me to do so. But I find
quotations of that nature less tiresome than some.

For example, I find it less tedious than some of the off-the-cuff
streams of poorly contrived cuteness appended to posts here.

Some have actually been droll enough to justify their existence.

Others...well.

But that's just me.

Oh. Score.

Given the nature of your statement(s)it would have been difficult to
fabricate lies to support them. This was poor strategy on your part,
and your score suffered from it. Unfortunate, but there it is.

From a tactical standpoint, you then recovered well by changing
the subject and even picked up a bit by combining that with
belittling my relative judgement and/or intelligence and implying
motives of a baser sort. Snide well done, says here.

Sadly, you did not try to strengthen your statement(s) by addressing
any perceived religious or moral shortcomings I might have.

Of course, that could be because I simply neglected to give you an
opening. I am sorry and will try to do better.

In summary, I'd award you a disappointing 2.5 on the posturing scale.
Rest easy though as the score won't aggregate given you weren't really
advocating a political position.

:-)

\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