You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #58: You haven't refuted a darn thing. You just deny and insist your opinion [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-10-09 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #55
58.  You haven't refuted a darn thing. You just deny and insist your opinion
Edited on Tue Nov-10-09 01:40 AM by saracat
and interpretation is fact.And I ignore nothing. I disagree with your interpretation of A and B . And so do many other folks much better informed than either of us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
  -I've downloaded the full House HealthCare Bill and the Stupak Amendment in .pdf if you want a copy stevenleser  Nov-10-09 12:33 AM   #0 
  - I agree with you about the healthcare bill because I have read it, but the stupak ammedment is B.S  still_one   Nov-10-09 12:38 AM   #1 
  - That is your opinion. Rep Degette, the Pro-Choice Caucus,  saracat   Nov-10-09 12:39 AM   #2 
  - No, it is not my "opinion". The wording is utterly straightforward.  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 12:43 AM   #3 
     - I have read the wording and you are slamming the pro choice groups.  saracat   Nov-10-09 12:47 AM   #5 
        - If you read the amendment, you know that you are spreading unjustified fear  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 12:51 AM   #8 
           - My motives are the same as prochoice America, NOW , Naral, Rep Degette,Rachel Maddow and Sen.  saracat   Nov-10-09 01:03 AM   #23 
              - How do you know your motives are the same? Did you ask them?  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:12 AM   #32 
                 - They state their motives regarding this amendment.They are clear.  saracat   Nov-10-09 01:20 AM   #40 
                    - Well, they have not stated their motives regarding their misunderstanding of the bill to me  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:32 AM   #52 
                       - They aren't misunderstanding. You are.  saracat   Nov-10-09 01:37 AM   #56 
                          - No, I am not, as I have easily refuted every contrary point you have raised (n/t)  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:40 AM   #59 
                             - And they aren't just my points.You haven't"refuted ".anything  saracat   Nov-10-09 01:49 AM   #63 
                                - I'll tell you of what you have convinced me. I am going to write an article on this where i go line  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:52 AM   #65 
                                   - Bye. I am sure anti choicers will be thrilled. You are so much smarter than NOW!  saracat   Nov-10-09 01:57 AM   #67 
  - Why not just paste the specific language here in the thread, that contradicts what the pro-choice  villager   Nov-10-09 12:47 AM   #4 
  - Because whoever created the .pdfs created them as graphics, i.e. they did not OCR the text  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 12:49 AM   #6 
  - What interest would the Pro-Choice groups have in misrepresnting the Stupak Amendment?  saracat   Nov-10-09 12:55 AM   #14 
     - I dont care what is in people's heads, I care what the bill says. (n/t)  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 12:57 AM   #18 
        - Answer the question. Why would these people be misrepresenting Stupak?  saracat   Nov-10-09 01:09 AM   #28 
           - For the last time, I am not a mindreader  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:11 AM   #30 
              - But do you think they are not capable of reading a n amedment correctly?  saracat   Nov-10-09 01:19 AM   #38 
                 - And that is all to which I stipulate.  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:33 AM   #53 
  - What I would like to know is what Interest all of the people I mention he thinks  saracat   Nov-10-09 12:51 AM   #7 
     - Unlike you, I am not attributing motive to people I have never met.  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 12:53 AM   #10 
     - I am not. I have quoted the text repeatedly and it is very bad.  saracat   Nov-10-09 01:01 AM   #20 
        - yes you have. You have never met me and you attributed multiple motives to me  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:06 AM   #26 
           - My take is that anyone who receives any subsidy from the government  saracat   Nov-10-09 01:12 AM   #33 
              - That is not correct. It specifically says the opposite. Are you intentionally not seeing that?  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:18 AM   #37 
                 - I cannot see what is not there. Why are you seemingly defending Stupak?  saracat   Nov-10-09 01:21 AM   #42 
     - A couple of other DUers went on the same tangent today, insisting the pro-choice groups were wrong  villager   Nov-10-09 12:54 AM   # 
     - Oh brother. Have you read the text?  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 12:55 AM   #13 
     - so by now you could've quoted here the salient passages, yes?  villager   Nov-10-09 12:56 AM   #15 
        - No. But you can read them here  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 12:57 AM   #17 
     - No kidding.  saracat   Nov-10-09 01:20 AM   #41 
     - They, like you, probably did NOT read the bill and are relying on  ecstatic   Nov-10-09 12:01 PM   #81 
  - Find a video of Rachel's show tonight before you argue about this.  madfloridian   Nov-10-09 12:52 AM   #9 
  - I have the text in front of me. Why would I trust someone else's interpretation over what I am  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 12:54 AM   #11 
     - how about a quote or two? To, you know, make your case a slam dunk?  villager   Nov-10-09 12:55 AM   #12 
     - Here, I found a link. Have at it...  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 12:56 AM   #16 
        - Was about to post the same link, and of course, you're wrong -- the language is clear  villager   Nov-10-09 01:00 AM   #19 
           - No, I am not wrong. Which part dont you get? (n/t)  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:01 AM   #21 
           - Read. Page. Two.  villager   Nov-10-09 01:04 AM   #24 
              - That is not correct. There are two versions of every plan to be offered.  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:08 AM   #27 
                 - If it's the last section, I think the language in paragraph (1) is clear about the funding  villager   Nov-10-09 01:18 AM   #36 
           - Once again from my OP  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:02 AM   #22 
              - It's a punitive tax on women, that doesn't currently exist. Why are other DU men  villager   Nov-10-09 01:05 AM   #25 
                 - My OP doesnt address that. It addresses some of the incorrect contentions.  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:10 AM   #29 
                 - Yes, it changes the fucking status quo, because women whose insurance covered them  villager   Nov-10-09 01:13 AM   #34 
                    - That is absolutely not true. Look, I may be male, but my insurance through my firm covers abortion  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:21 AM   #43 
                    - "...if they are going to pay for it themselves."  villager   Nov-10-09 01:32 AM   #50 
                    - The "non-exchange covered slut policies" as you call them are what companies buy for their employees  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:39 AM   #57 
                       - Companies will buy extra abortion coverage for their employees?  villager   Nov-10-09 01:44 AM   #62 
                          - I already have abortion coverage, why would I need extra? Do you not understand the concept of the  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:50 AM   #64 
                             - do you not understand the concept of one plan costing more than the other?  villager   Nov-10-09 02:23 AM   #68 
                    - Right!! Stupak doesnt say HCI's can NOT offer abortion insurance they have to offer a rider WITHOUT  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 10:31 AM   #74 
                    - "Why are you defending this" - I'll explain  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:26 AM   #46 
                       - Unfortunately ,you are wrong.And many of us, including some who have a vote  saracat   Nov-10-09 01:31 AM   #48 
                       - I am not wrong. Every argument you have raised I have easily refuted.  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:36 AM   #55 
                          - You haven't refuted a darn thing. You just deny and insist your opinion  saracat   Nov-10-09 01:39 AM   #58 
                             - Every time you have raised a portion of the language, I have shown you where you were wrong  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:42 AM   #60 
                                - Not so. Thank God you don't have any influence or a vote.Just let the Pro-Choice  saracat   Nov-10-09 01:56 AM   #66 
                       - It's means the Democratic party took the side of religion over women's rights.  madfloridian   Nov-10-09 11:17 AM   #78 
                 - The entire bill is a tax increase on men  lumberjack_jeff   Nov-10-09 10:09 AM   #73 
     - because it's someone else's interpretation  nosferaustin   Nov-10-09 09:37 AM   #72 
  - It's what could happen under this legislation  sandnsea   Nov-10-09 01:12 AM   #31 
  - Now that is an interesting contention worth discussing. Thank you.  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:16 AM   #35 
  - Oh hey, me too  sandnsea   Nov-10-09 01:32 AM   #51 
  - +1, I think you've identified the distinction.  NYC_SKP   Nov-10-09 01:19 AM   #39 
  - "solves the problem if calmer heads would prevail."  Forkboy   Nov-10-09 01:24 AM   #44 
  - This is a practical example of just "one" of the problems  saracat   Nov-10-09 01:25 AM   #45 
  - +1  villager   Nov-10-09 01:29 AM   #47 
  - That doesnt make sense.  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:31 AM   #49 
     - If you had "read" my post properly you would be able to interpret that this isn't "MY" plan  saracat   Nov-10-09 01:36 AM   #54 
        - No, I read your post correctly. Once again, you didnt read the parts of my post that you didnt like  stevenleser   Nov-10-09 01:43 AM   #61 
        - K, Stupak sec 236 and Hyde 507 read almost word for word the same why isn't that happening today  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 09:14 AM   #71 
  - "Calmer heads"? Big putdown when our party just sold out women...  madfloridian   Nov-10-09 09:05 AM   #69 
  - There's NO supplemental insurance NOW! Stupak, like Hyde, does NOT prevent the use of ones own money  uponit7771   Nov-10-09 09:11 AM   #70 
  - NO, it is NOT simple when women are discriminated against and have to Buy  joeycola   Nov-10-09 10:37 AM   #76 
  - Total practical solution  Jennicut   Nov-10-09 11:25 AM   #79 
  - They sold women out to the religious right. Just like they have done to gays.  madfloridian   Nov-10-09 10:34 AM   #75 
  - Thanks Steven. I'll pm you n/t  firedupdem   Nov-10-09 10:41 AM   #77 
  - I think you may be missing part of the point  dccrossman   Nov-10-09 11:53 AM   #80 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC