You’re quite right. We need a way of explaining this that’s on the same level as most political discourse these days.
Goldilocks was walking through the Potomac woods, when she happened across a small cottage with a rotunda. She knocked on the door of the cottage, but there was nobody home. So she let herself in. On the table were three health car reform plans. She tried the first one. “Ooh, this health care reform plan is too hot,” she said…
I think she should have said, “This health care reform plan is too liberal.” 
Yeah, people who firmly embrace lies or half-truths about 9/11 bug me.
Everyone knows the 9/11 perps were safely based in Cleveland.
Although I’m not a GOPer, I was against the healthcare bill, mainly because of the longterm cost and the (un)consitutionality of it. So my chime-in:
pseudo, isn’t reasonable to assume that if the bill went further to the left, thereby getting the ‘yes vote’ of some of the pollees, that they’d then lose some that were more on the right side of the spectrum yet still were voting (barely) yes? I like to think that the entire American electorate can be thought as a spectrum, and once you move the slider to the left, you’ll lose some who drop off to the right.
In fact, if you think of the way both houses in Congress went about voting for this mess, and assume that that’s a reasonably accurate analog for the electorate, then that’s pretty much exactly what happened. A more (socialist-y) ambitious bill would have clearly lost the votes of a lot of legislators… it’s not unreasonable to assume that this same affect would happen with those who responded to the poll.
People who insist on not getting the point bug me. :rolleyes:
People who let themselves get whooshed on the SDMB bug me. 
Give me some evidence of the point being missed and I’ll consider it. I don’t play to cling to the belief that you’re an lie-spreading idiot just to be stubborn, after all. That would be childish. And I’ll even admit the possibility that you’ve since come to realize your error and I simply missed your admission. If so, I will certainly apologize.
And I do have some personal issue with this particular lie. In the general panic and chaos after the attack, any number of mistaken beliefs were being thrown around, including that some or most of the hijackers had entered the U.S. from Canada. I’m not sure how many American still believe this, but I would have shrugged it off in the months afterward when facts were largely unknown. That an American would believe Canada was somehow complicit years later, after a great deal of evidence has been brought forth about the hijackers and their movements… well, that person is just being willfully stupid and deserves to get called on it and ridiculed for it.
You might, with a moment’s reflection, realize the conundrum there. :rolleyes:
It’s a good thing you realize that. It’s the first step on the road to recovery from being Canada’s FinnAgain.
Then you might reread that thread you have hotlisted once again. You just might find something interesting. Or perhaps not, which, given your history, would be the better bet.
I do have some personal issue with being called a liar, normally, except that coming from someone with such strong filters in place it means no more coming from you than it does from, well, FinnAgain.
For the sake of anyone else who might be reading, since this is the part Mr. Ekers filters out: The point involves far more than 9/11 and far more than Montreal, and includes a long history of Canadian government policy. An honest person might be willing to explore those topics and recognize that there have been, and are, issues. Instead, Mr. Ekers prefers a game that even he is beginning to call “childish”.
Now wait for the “But, but, airliners at Gander!” riposte. :rolleyes:
It must be escaping me, I fear.
Maybe he’s America’s me. To be honest, I don’t know what his politics are. I don’t even know what your politics are, just a while ago you said something blatantly wrong (or even under the most generous possible interpretation, grossly misleading) and since it involved my home city, it was more memorable than if you’d said, for example, “the 9/11 perps were safely based in Madrid”. This statement would be just as incorrect, but since I’ve never been to Madrid, I likely wouldn’t care enough to rebut it or remember who said it.
As I recall of the earlier discussion (and, no, I don’t have the earlier thread “hotlisted” or in my favourites, or anything, really), you attempted to defend your statement by invoking two minor Al-Qaida members whose involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks was peripheral at best, and who had been to or briefly lived in Montreal, and fled it at some point. By any reasonable definition, they weren’t “9/11 perps”, nor were they “safely based” here. I also seem to recall mentioning some American city (in Florida, I think) in which nearly half of the actual hijackers (“9/11 perps” without question ) had personal bank accounts, which makes this city far more qualified as a “safe base”.
By the increasingly tenuous definitions of “perp” and “safely” you were applying in order to avoid admitting that you screwed up, there are probably several dozen cities which would more readily qualify than Montreal. I thought it was kind of amusing how stubbornly you clung to your statement, even as evidence piled against it.
I don’t know what you know or believe of my history. I’m sure I’ve made statements that were wrong or which several other posters said were wrong. No-one ever brings them to my attention, though, probably because they weren’t all that memorable, or pigheaded, or libelous.
I haven’t been keeping track of your posting history, I only know this one particular lie. For all I know, it could be the only one you’ve told in your whole life, and you defended it energetically despite all opposition.
As for FinnAgain (again)… well, he’s got his hobbies and I have mine. I don’t take offense at being compared to him, because I don’t know what his deal is.
“The 9/11 perps were safely based in Montreal” is, to best of my recall, the blunt, simple, unambiguous statement which was challenged and you never managed to support. I don’t recall a larger point being made about Canada generally, but I’d be willing to explore it. Heck, I have no illusions about my country’s spotty moral record about letting some people in and keeping some people out (ref: None is Too Many) but I honesty don’t think I can have such a discussion with you if you still believe “the 9/11 perps were safely based in Montreal” on very tenuous evidence. It doesn’t fill me with confidence that you’ll apply a high standard to other, similar, claims. It would be like discussing evolution with someone who casually states that humans and dinosaurs coexisted and, when challenged on this, expands the definition of “human” and “dinosaur” until he can vaguely and unconvincingly claim vindication.
What about them?
As a minor note, the above is a perfect example of how “Pubbies” (or anyone, really) can get away with blatant lies - deny the lie; change the definitions; dismiss the opinions of those who disagree by calling them blinkered or biased or “filtered”; liken them to someone else who may be unpopular (I don’t know if FinnAgain is, but it looks like ElvisL1ves believes he is)… The Republicans didn’t invent the technique, nor do they have a copyright on it.
Here’s your cookie and a warm glass of milk. Now go to bed, Junior, the adults are talking.
Condescension won’t work on me. I don’t expect you’ll admit you were wrong at this late date; I just saw an opportunity to grind my little axe, being reasonably proud of my home city and all, after being presented with an opportunity to rebut a blatant lie about it, after the liar made a disparaging remark about other liars.
I don’t know what city you’re from, but if I ever say it was host to a reconnaissance party of alien lizards, feel free to call me on it.
Well. I’m from Waco, Texas, and that scenario doesn’t seem entirely unlikely.
Since attempting to get you to see and address the fucking point doesn’t either, what else is left? :rolleyes:
Uhhh, never mind, I guess.
You two might want to think about getting a room.
What “fucking point” was that? You made a statement a while back. It was proven wrong and you wouldn’t admit it. If there’s some larger point, I invite you to point it out because until you do, you may as well be trying to “get [me] to see” an invisible unicorn.
If I can hazard a guess, your point was that the Republicans can get away with lies because there’s a proven segment of the American population eager to believe them, evidenced by the number of people who bought into (and who still believe) Iraq had WMDs. I merely took this opportunity to point out something wrong that you claimed and will not relinquish.
How do Pubbies get away with lying about health-care disapproval?
Because the Dems approve the lies.
According to a recent Reuters poll
In particular, Physicians for a Single Payer HC System were denied a voice in the national debates.
Denied how?
Maybe marginalized is a better word. How often do you (or did you) see SPHC seriously discussed in the national media in any but disparaging terms? Did Barack “Public Option” Obama invite their input in his televised “bi-partisan” discussion of the issues?
See? :rolleyes:
Not even the right country. :rolleyes:
If you ever figure it out, let us know, okay, Junior?