Hi again NK,
Why can't they wait until all the old people die before they implement these changes?
.
|
Hi again NK,
Why can't they wait until all the old people die before they implement these changes?
.
So Romney is once again killing people. Your side is kind of sick and desperate.
Who said that?Quote:
So Romney is once again killing people.
Sorry Steve that's my fault.
NK, was having a discussion about the old skin versus the new skin at ASKMEHELP DESK. There seems to be some opposition from the older members.
It kind of reminds me of an old Australian joke from the 1960's when we changed over to the metric system.
Two old ladies go into a butcher shop and ask for a pound of sausages. The butcher say that she is really asking for 4.5 Kilos of sausages.
One of the elderly ladies replies that she finds it impossible to cope with the new metric system. She says to the butcher, "Why couldn't they wait until all the old people die before they introduced this dam system?"
Tut
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
obsessions the left has with accusing/implying Republicans are killing people.
So, when Sarah Palin mentioned death panels, she was only kidding... I think YOU were on board with 'em too.
Look, I know you think you're the good guys, but you're anything BUT.
Excon
Absolutely nowhere in any of those posts does anyone accuse Romney of killing people. Only you said that.Quote:
No, no Tut, I was referring to this post, this thread, Ryan pushing granny over a cliff and other obsessions the left has with accusing/implying Republicans are killing people.
I said "accusing/implying".
I guess the guy felt like he was building his own coffin to use it as a coffee table and not you know, as an actual coffin.Quote:
“Mitt Romney made over $100 million dollars by shutting down our plant and devastated our lives,” employee Mike Earnest said in the ad. “Turns out by building the stage, it was like building my own coffin. And it just made me sick.”
Ex, you know I acknowledge good and bad on both sides.
You don't like the term "death panel" for a board that actually WILL decide what medical treatments will be paid for, and I don't like the term "voter suppression" for requiring an ID to prevent my vote from being wasted.
I personally think trying to encourage participation in elections by safeguarding them and allowing people to choose their medical care is a good thing.
Insurance companies already do this. They are the current death panels.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Voter suppression is putting an ID directive in place right before an election.Quote:
I don't like the term "voter suppression" for requiring an ID to prevent my vote from being wasted.
Correct.Quote:
Insurance companies already do this. They are the current death panels.
Voter suppression is putting an ID directive in place right before an election.
It's like a state law that all guns must be surrendered to one's local police station a month before an election and then be reclaimed once the gun owner has voted and received an official "I voted" ticket.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Or the seven states that ban atheists from holding public office.
It's nothing like that at all.Quote:
It's like a state law that all guns must be surrendered to one's local police station a month before an election and then be reclaimed once the gun owner has voted and received an official "I voted" ticket.
It's ALWAYS right before an election. It would seem rather pointless to wait to implement a voter ID law until AFTER the election.Quote:
Voter suppression is putting an ID directive in place right before an election.
FYI so you can move on to whatever other pointless spin you guys may have in reserve, South Carolina's voter ID law was proposed on 12/10/08, almost 4 years ago.
It is PRECISELY like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
No, it would be implemented a year or so before an election in order to give EVERYONE time to comply.Quote:
It's ALWAYS right before an election. It would seem rather pointless to wait to implement a voter ID law until AFTER the election.
There's always elections . Steve made the key point. This is just a stalling tactic so that it wouldn't apply to THIS election .
Sorry, but it's really, really not like that at all.Quote:
It is PRECISELY like that.
And again, back to square one. Exactly how much time is 'enough' time? Especially seeing as how libs are going to drag it through the courts no matter when it's passed or what it says?Quote:
No, it would be implemented a year or so before an election in order to give EVERYONE time to comply.
It's a request for a limited time that targets only certain voters.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
A year is fair. A few months is not.Quote:
And again, back to square one. Exactly how much time is 'enough' time?
Time enough to get it right on the process/implementation level and be fair enough so there will be no court case. Of course either side can disagree with the fairness, and challenge it through the courts. That's a right of due process. You guys have been losing all year, starting with Obamacare!Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Something must be seriously wrong with the way you guys have handled things. You can't blame that on liberals, but something tells me you will!
No it doesn't, it APPLIES to EVERY voter.Quote:
It's a request for a limited time that targets only certain voters.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:27 PM. |