View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently October 25th, 2014, 11:46 pm



Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
 Beyond 8 million: Obamacare math 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Re: Beyond 8 million: Obamacare math
A quick google search of the last item's author brings up this:
Quote:
Michael Connelly
Claim: Attorney's essay challenges the constitutionality of health care reform legislation.

OUTDATED

Example: [Connelly, August 2009]

Quote:
The Truth About the Health Care Bills

Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.

However, as scary as all of that it, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

[Rest of article here.]

Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton, Texas
Origins: Michael R. Connelly is a former U.S. Army officer and Louisiana attorney. On 12 August 2009 he posted on his blog the above-referenced essay, entitled "The Truth About the Health Care Bills," opining that portions of HB 3200 (The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009), a health care reform bill then under consideration by Congress, were unconstitutional.

Most of that essay is now outdated, however. The bill that Mr. Connelly addressed, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), was never passed by Congress. A completely different bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), became the basis for what is now known as "Obamacare," so many of the points raised by Mr. Connelly referenced aspects of health care reform legislation that were never enacted by Congress

Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court contradicted most of Mr. Connelly's arguments, issuing a ruling in June 2012 that the U.S. Supreme Court, upheld the constitutionality of "Obamacare" health care reform legislation.

Last updated: 2 October 2013

Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2014 by snopes.com.
This material may not be reproduced without permission.
snopes and the snopes.com logo are registered service marks of snopes.com.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/ ... 6SDkyYd.99
Haven't checked the other links yet, tho if they're anything like the one debunked by Snopes, or some of the others you've posted from other questionable sources, I'm not expecting too much.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


April 23rd, 2014, 9:22 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Re: Beyond 8 million: Obamacare math
And here's FactCheck.org's take on it:
Quote:
Health Care Overhaul: Constitutional?
Posted on October 2, 2009

Q: Are the health care overhaul proposals that are pending in the House and Senate constitutional?
A: Legal experts agree that requiring citizens to buy something is a novel concept that has not been tested in the courts.

FULL QUESTION
Could you factcheck this for me and others who are receiving it?
Quote:
IF YOU HAVE DOUBTS AFTER THE PRESIDENT’S SPEECH , READ WHAT A CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER HAS TO SAY…

Michael Connelly of Carrollton, Texas is a retired Constitutional lawyer and has read the entire health care bill and has some comments, not about the bill, but about the effects on our Constitution. It’s a broader picture than just health care reform.

⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏
FULL ANSWER
We’ve received dozens of queries from readers about this chain e-mail, and especially about its claims that the House health care overhaul bill, H.R. 3200, is unconstitutional. That’s a question judges get paid to settle, so we can’t answer that definitively. But we can lay out the facts and the arguments.

Michael Connelly, the "retired attorney" who penned the diatribe included in the e-mail, makes a number of other claims about the bill, too, such as that private insurance companies will be forced out of existence. We’ll deal with those briefly at the end.

Can Congress Do This?
Connelly begins his constitutional objections by calling the bill "the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred." He claims that there’s nothing in the "text of the Constitution" giving Congress the authority to regulate health care. He’s right that the document doesn’t specifically grant Congress that power, but that’s a very narrow reading of the words.

Other lawyers who believe, or don’t believe, that Congress has the authority to regulate health care have engaged the argument more cogently. The dispute hinges mainly on differing interpretations of the commerce clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” Writing about the Clinton administration’s proposed effort to overhaul health care, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel said in 1993 (with quotes from a 1940 Supreme Court decision):
Quote:
Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, 1993: The American health care industry is one of the largest and fastest growing segments of the American economy, and it has the most direct and crucial impact on the lives of all Americans. Spiralling health care costs and inequities in the provision of health care services have an immediate and massive effect on the national economy and thus upon interstate commerce. As a result Congress unquestionably possesses the power "to deal directly and specifically" with health care in order to obtain "social, health [and] economic advantages" for the American people.
Since the OLC memo was written, there have been a couple of important Supreme Court decisions striking down congressional statutes for being insufficiently grounded in the commerce clause: One law banned the possession of firearms in the vicinity of schools, while another gave victims of gender-motivated crimes the right to sue their attackers in federal court. But the activities being regulated by those laws were not as clearly economic as the purchase and delivery of health care.

The Right to Buy Insurance
Critics argue particularly strongly against the requirement in health care legislation pending in both the House and Senate that nearly all citizens buy health insurance. A counter-argument is that the success of the whole systemic overhaul depends on the individual mandate being part of the scheme, meaning the requirement is authorized by the commerce clause. But the uncertainty of this approach was voiced by the Congressional Research Service, which recently wrote (as reported by the New York Times):
Quote:
CRS: Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the commerce clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or service.
Another argument is made by critics that the government can’t make an individual buy something just because he or she exists. The "economic liberty" argument harkens back to the early 1900s, when the Supreme Court, in Lochner v. New York, threw out a New York law limiting the number of hours per day that a baker could work. The court said such regulation amounted to "unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract." But the Lochner era had moderated by the late 1930s, and legal experts consider the current Supreme Court unlikely to produce a majority in favor of reverting to early 20th century interpretations in this area. Mark Hall, professor of law and public health at Wake Forest University’s law school, writes that there is no fundamental right to be uninsured. "The liberty in question is purely economic and has none of the strong elements of personal or bodily integrity that invoke constitutional protection," he says.
Quote:
Hall: Under the Due Process Clause [of the 5th Amendment], no Supreme Court decision since 1935 has struck down any state or federal legislation for infringing economic liberties, and any such action would be radically inconsistent with current constitutional doctrine.
Hall also notes that the Takings Clause (which is also found in the 5th Amendment, and prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without "just compensation") might form the basis of a challenge, but writes that it’s not at all clear that mandating a private purchase constitutes a "taking."

Democrats in the House and Senate have framed the mandate as a tax provision, which might have the effect of helping the bill dodge some of the constitutional showdowns. After all, lawmakers have the power "to levy taxes and spend funds" for the "general welfare of the United States." In the House bill, the amount is a percentage of income, with some adjustments. In the Finance Committee version, it is a flat fee.

But David Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey, lawyers who served in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, say that calling the fee a "tax" is "congressional trickery" and that the levy is "clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress’s constitutional power." They add that "a tax that is so clearly a penalty for failing to comply with requirements otherwise beyond Congress’s constitutional power will present the question whether there are any limits on Congress’s power to regulate individual Americans."

Republicans in some states have moved to try to outlaw the individual mandate, saying the federal government is overreaching its authority. But even some legal thinkers who question the constitutionality of health insurance mandates believe the states’ rights argument would make a weak case.

We may find out. There’s little doubt that if the health care legislation passes and requires citizens to buy health insurance, it will be challenged in court. The final pronouncement may well be up to the nine justices who preside in the chamber right across the street from the Capitol.

P.S. The Kitchen Sink
Oh yes, almost forgot. Connelly also spools out a list of evils supposedly caused by the bill, providing support for none of them. We’ve dispatched many of these assertions before. He claims that the bill provides for:
"…rationing of health care," especially for seniors. That’s false, as we’ve explained many times.
"…free health care for illegal immigrants." Actually, it prohibits illegal immigrants from getting federal subsidies for their care. They could still get care at any hospital emergency rooms that would treat them, which is true currently, too.
"…free abortion services." It’s true that private insurance purchased with the help of federal subsidies could cover abortions, as could a proposed "public option" plan run by the government. But neither would be free. The bill also says abortions would have to be paid for with money from policyholders’ premium payments, and not taxpayer money.
"…probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession." That’s wrong. H.R. 3200, the bill Connelly is writing about, continues "conscience" provisions in current law that allow health care workers to decline to provide abortions.

As for Connelly’s assertions that the bill will "eventually force private insurance companies out of business" and "put everyone in a governrment-run system," they are Connelly’s speculation, and there is nothing in the bill to that effect. Likewise the claim that "ultimately" all personal health care decisions will be made by "federal bureaucrats." Connelly also says that "hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled." That too is conjecture. To some degree, that’s what happens today under Medicare, though Connelly doesn’t mention it. The bill wouldn’t take it beyond that program.
– Viveca Novak

Sources
Dellinger, Walter and H. Jefferson Powell. "Constitutionality of Health Care Reform." Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice. 29 Oct 1993.
Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381(1940).
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters rectum’n, 322 U.S. 533 (1944).
Hall, Mark. "Legal Solutions in Health Reform: The Constitutionality of Mandates to Purchase Health Insurance." O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University.
Rivkin, David B., Jr., and Lee A. Casey. "Mandatory Insurance is Unconstitutional." The Wall Street Journal. 18 Sept 2009.
Davey, Monica. "In Some States, a Push to Ban Mandate on Insurance." The New York Times. 29 Sept 2009.
Seelye, Katharine Q. "A Constitutional Debate Over a Health Care Mandate." The New York Times. 26 Sept 2009.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/health ... itutional/

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


April 23rd, 2014, 9:37 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Re: Beyond 8 million: Obamacare math
WarEr4Christ wrote:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/flashback-obamacare-largest-legislative-transfer-power-executive-branch
This is a bunch of quotes from opponents of the legislation directly after the vote, hardly a factual source, don't you think?
WarEr4Christ wrote:
http://www.dailypaul.com/300335/obamacare-is-the-most-massive-transfer-of-power-to-the-executive-branch-of-government-that-has-ever-occurred
This links to the aforementioned, outdated article.

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


April 23rd, 2014, 10:22 am
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Beyond 8 million: Obamacare math
See this is what I'm talking about in the posting of links. You guys demand links, and when I do post some that I happened to find on a google search, your haughty, self-righteous tone gets aggravating. I had trouble locating the mentioned link because of the search parameters. I didn't word the question right and so I couldn't locate it. Regardless, when I did find it, and you've had a moment to sift through it, your "tone" is "Haven't checked the other links yet, tho if they're anything like the one debunked by Snopes, or some of the others you've posted from other questionable sources, I'm not expecting too much." I find it almost laughable that you fact hounds demand links and resources not for a search for truth, but for a chance to eviscerate the poster. I watched it happen with Steve, and it happens more often than not. It's like swallowing a camel so you can strain out a gnat! For the record: it has been well addressed that my mind does not think along the lines that you and others operate in. So your abilities to bludgeon with facts, figures, links, and counter-links and the use of words like debunk is well noted! I shared the top 3 from google after briefly scanning them, I have no idea who csns or whoever it was is, and frankly don't care. I'm just curious as to what sort of pleasure or kick is derived from humiliating or attempting to humiliate someone with your uber knowledge on things like this? Does that REALLY promote healthy discussion? If we were to sit and carry on a conversation, and I kept slapping you in the face every time you said something wrong, do you think that conversation is going to last very long? There is a way of showing someone their error without being self-righteous, and I'd like to see if y'all could try that for a little while.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


April 23rd, 2014, 2:03 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3142
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Beyond 8 million: Obamacare math
WarEr4Christ wrote:
See this is what I'm talking about in the posting of links. You guys demand links, and when I do post some that I happened to find on a google search, your haughty, self-righteous tone gets aggravating. I had trouble locating the mentioned link because of the search parameters. I didn't word the question right and so I couldn't locate it. Regardless, when I did find it, and you've had a moment to sift through it, your "tone" is "Haven't checked the other links yet, tho if they're anything like the one debunked by Snopes, or some of the others you've posted from other questionable sources, I'm not expecting too much." I find it almost laughable that you fact hounds demand links and resources not for a search for truth, but for a chance to eviscerate the poster. I watched it happen with Steve, and it happens more often than not. It's like swallowing a camel so you can strain out a gnat! For the record: it has been well addressed that my mind does not think along the lines that you and others operate in. So your abilities to bludgeon with facts, figures, links, and counter-links and the use of words like debunk is well noted! I shared the top 3 from google after briefly scanning them, I have no idea who csns or whoever it was is, and frankly don't care. I'm just curious as to what sort of pleasure or kick is derived from humiliating or attempting to humiliate someone with your uber knowledge on things like this? Does that REALLY promote healthy discussion? If we were to sit and carry on a conversation, and I kept slapping you in the face every time you said something wrong, do you think that conversation is going to last very long? There is a way of showing someone their error without being self-righteous, and I'd like to see if y'all could try that for a little while.

WarEr, I think you're way off base here. Your comment that we "demand links and resources not for a search for truth, but for a chance to eviscerate the poster." is completely false. If you want to get hung up on tone, that's your prerogative. But, the facts remain that what you posted simply wasn't true, and that's what Wags was pointing out. He also did go through the other articles (after his initial post) and also found those to not be accurate/true. Those are the two follow up posts he made after his initial one. This is how honest, adult conversations work. You present your opinion/info, then others take a look and evaluate whether it is true or not (from their perspective). If you have other info that you think rebuts what they said, by all means follow up with that. What you're doing here (from my perspective) is basically saying that you want to be able to post your thoughts, links, etc. without any repercussions or fact checking. You seem to be getting upset that people are fact checking and calling you out on it.

As for your comment about steven, I really don't know what else to say. There have been multiple posts explaining why what he posted doesn't hold up to scrutiny, and he has not answered the very simple questions asked of him. If you don't get that, I don't think there's any way to have a conversation.

This to me kind of goes back to a previous thread about Christianity and belief. You live your life as a believer; thus belief is a central part of your being. I do not operate in that way, so belief is not part of my being. I arrive at conclusions based on facts and evidence, not belief. So when we try to "prove" our arguments, it's as if we're speaking different languages. Personally, I have spent a lot of time with my family and others who are devout Catholics, and I understand where they come from. I grew up in a Catholic house, and went to Catholic schools, so I understand the background, mentality, etc. I understand how a belief centric life works (in general), I just choose not to live in that way. It doesn't make sense to me. I think (as has been posted many times here) that it would do you a lot of good to really try to understand where someone like me comes from (mentality wise). But, as you have pointed out many times, you have no interest in really exploring anything outside of your belief system. So, without the effort from you to at least try to understand where someone like me is coming from, there's really nowhere for the conversation to go. Or, more simply, until we both understand where each other is coming from, we'll continue speaking different languages.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


April 24th, 2014, 3:35 am
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Beyond 8 million: Obamacare math
TDJ,
I haven't read all of your response, and I will at a better time, but I do want you to understand that I wrote that in frustration. I did not take a few minutes to breath before posting, and was afraid there would be some flashback.

The original link I was looking for was from the Constitutional attorney, and it had been some time since I'd heard his story. Having said that, I had no way of knowing, and because I'm not directly involved in it at the moment, not caring, that he was discussing another law.

The Tone is the basis of the issue. It's a matter of respect! I get that we see things from different perspectives, and that often causes us to be at odds. I understand that my bull-headed posture and line of thinking, probably pisses y'all off to the highest levels of pisstivity, but there is still a civil way of sharing the disagreements.

From Blues' face palms to down some derogatory comments, it just isn't very conducive to communication. Like I said, if we were discussing a topic and everytime you were wrong I slapped you in the face, how long do you think that would continue to be a conversation? I'm betting it would be 1 maybe 2 slaps before tables are flying.

I respect you guys for your knowledge, and as I said, you often challenge me to dig deeper into my own faith to answer your questions. But, I really try hard not to be disrespectful, even when I vehemently disagree with anyone. IE and I used to go back and forth in heated debates, back when I was "devildoc", and since I've matured A LOT, I have made an effort to make sure that I'm handling myself as I should.

I honestly do believe that because of the differences in how we look at things, affects my use of facts. I'll go through and take a look at your statement later and see if I need to comment further.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


April 24th, 2014, 9:40 am
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12141
Post Re: Beyond 8 million: Obamacare math
WarEr4Christ wrote:
TDJ,
I haven't read all of your response, and I will at a better time, but I do want you to understand that I wrote that in frustration. I did not take a few minutes to breath before posting, and was afraid there would be some flashback.

The original link I was looking for was from the Constitutional attorney, and it had been some time since I'd heard his story. Having said that, I had no way of knowing, and because I'm not directly involved in it at the moment, not caring, that he was discussing another law.

The Tone is the basis of the issue. It's a matter of respect! I get that we see things from different perspectives, and that often causes us to be at odds. I understand that my bull-headed posture and line of thinking, probably pisses y'all off to the highest levels of pisstivity, but there is still a civil way of sharing the disagreements.

From Blues' face palms to down some derogatory comments, it just isn't very conducive to communication. Like I said, if we were discussing a topic and everytime you were wrong I slapped you in the face, how long do you think that would continue to be a conversation? I'm betting it would be 1 maybe 2 slaps before tables are flying.

I respect you guys for your knowledge, and as I said, you often challenge me to dig deeper into my own faith to answer your questions. But, I really try hard not to be disrespectful, even when I vehemently disagree with anyone. IE and I used to go back and forth in heated debates, back when I was "devildoc", and since I've matured A LOT, I have made an effort to make sure that I'm handling myself as I should.

I honestly do believe that because of the differences in how we look at things, affects my use of facts. I'll go through and take a look at your statement later and see if I need to comment further.
Tell ya what, I'm done discussing off-topic items with you.

I find it hilarious that you're crying about the 'tone' of a post, whereas many times the 'tone' of your posts are of the Believer vs Non-believer and how you're so much better because of your relationship with your chose deity. In fact, the tone of your previous posts in the thread were of the "You're wrong. I know for a fact that ObamaCare is a secret transfer of power", then when present with contradicting information you start crying.

I'm done with ya, WarEr. Have a good life and I wish you and yours nothing but the best.
Peace, light and love

_________________
Quote:
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....


April 24th, 2014, 9:47 am
Profile
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1387
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Beyond 8 million: Obamacare math
WarEr4Christ wrote:
TDJ,
I haven't read all of your response, and I will at a better time, but I do want you to understand that I wrote that in frustration. I did not take a few minutes to breath before posting, and was afraid there would be some flashback.

The original link I was looking for was from the Constitutional attorney, and it had been some time since I'd heard his story. Having said that, I had no way of knowing, and because I'm not directly involved in it at the moment, not caring, that he was discussing another law.

The Tone is the basis of the issue. It's a matter of respect! I get that we see things from different perspectives, and that often causes us to be at odds. I understand that my bull-headed posture and line of thinking, probably pisses y'all off to the highest levels of pisstivity, but there is still a civil way of sharing the disagreements.

From Blues' face palms to down some derogatory comments, it just isn't very conducive to communication. Like I said, if we were discussing a topic and everytime you were wrong I slapped you in the face, how long do you think that would continue to be a conversation? I'm betting it would be 1 maybe 2 slaps before tables are flying.

I respect you guys for your knowledge, and as I said, you often challenge me to dig deeper into my own faith to answer your questions. But, I really try hard not to be disrespectful, even when I vehemently disagree with anyone. IE and I used to go back and forth in heated debates, back when I was "devildoc", and since I've matured A LOT, I have made an effort to make sure that I'm handling myself as I should.

I honestly do believe that because of the differences in how we look at things, affects my use of facts. I'll go through and take a look at your statement later and see if I need to comment further.


I really don't understand your thought process. When people ask for links to back up your statements you consistently use links you later say you didn't look over in detail. Why would you ever do that?? If your giving a link to prove your point your then attaching yourself to that link in the eyes of everyone reading the post. When that link turns out to be sketchy or is a poorly researched article it just makes you look bad for using it.


April 24th, 2014, 10:23 am
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Beyond 8 million: Obamacare math
Quote:
This to me kind of goes back to a previous thread about Christianity and belief. You live your life as a believer; thus belief is a central part of your being. I do not operate in that way, so belief is not part of my being. I arrive at conclusions based on facts and evidence, not belief. So when we try to "prove" our arguments, it's as if we're speaking different languages. Personally, I have spent a lot of time with my family and others who are devout Catholics, and I understand where they come from. I grew up in a Catholic house, and went to Catholic schools, so I understand the background, mentality, etc. I understand how a belief centric life works (in general), I just choose not to live in that way. It doesn't make sense to me. I think (as has been posted many times here) that it would do you a lot of good to really try to understand where someone like me comes from (mentality wise). But, as you have pointed out many times, you have no interest in really exploring anything outside of your belief system. So, without the effort from you to at least try to understand where someone like me is coming from, there's really nowhere for the conversation to go. Or, more simply, until we both understand where each other is coming from, we'll continue speaking different languages.


Excellent perspective TDJ, that was quite interesting to see it in print, thanks! I believe you are spot on in this regard, I just didn't see it in that way.

Rao: I made a claim based upon an article I'd heard discussed and I was having difficulty looking it up because I didn't use the right terminology in the search window. The first couple of links spoke of the same general topic, but I can not say who the organizations were that wrote about the topic. In my brief scan they spoke of the same general topic that I was looking for, so I copied and pasted the link. The last one, was the one I'd been referencing and I did go through that one with more accuracy because it appeared to be so close to what I'd heard. That was the one I noted by FOUND IT. What I did not do is follow it up with Snopes, or whothunkit, or whatever, because I don't operate in that realm.

The difficulty here was not that it was debunked, but the way it was debunked. Adult conversation is mutually respectful even in disagreement, it's about the delivery.

TDJ: I did make that statement about not having interest in pursuing other belief systems, but then NJRoar called me out on it and corrected my perspective. I then said that I'd be willing to take a look, just not everything at once. So what can I read to see how your mind thinks?

Wags: it's probably best, we probably need a break from each other anyway. But I'll have you know that for as many times as I do not agree with your politics, or beliefs, I have not humiliated you. As for tone, the delivery has come out wrong from time to time, and you've checked me on it, to which I swiftly apologized, especially when it regarded your paganism. But to demean you or your information because it happens to be wrong has not been my argument.

Again, going back to your comment much earlier in this very thread, you asked the commonality of stories and legends by multiple people groups, and I refered you back to historical documentation by Jewish people, about their lineage, but still haven't seen a reply. 1. Did that answer your question in regards to the similarity between stories and people groups that formed other religions? 2. Does that qualify as proof? In the end, it's all opinion based, which comes from beliefs and perspectives, but I've tried hard not to be proud, and when i was, I tried to apologize quickly in order to make it right. Enjoy the time off, like I said I think we both need it! I still respect your perspective and ability to provide stats and figures, and wish I could match that ability with more accuracy, but life is too fluid for me at present.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


April 24th, 2014, 1:46 pm
Profile
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1387
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Beyond 8 million: Obamacare math
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Rao: I made a claim based upon an article I'd heard discussed and I was having difficulty looking it up because I didn't use the right terminology in the search window. The first couple of links spoke of the same general topic, but I can not say who the organizations were that wrote about the topic. In my brief scan they spoke of the same general topic that I was looking for, so I copied and pasted the link. The last one, was the one I'd been referencing and I did go through that one with more accuracy because it appeared to be so close to what I'd heard. That was the one I noted by FOUND IT. What I did not do is follow it up with Snopes, or whothunkit, or whatever, because I don't operate in that realm.

The difficulty here was not that it was debunked, but the way it was debunked. Adult conversation is mutually respectful even in disagreement, it's about the delivery.


I don't disagree that some people like to take jabs at you and maybe can be a little too harsh, but you leave yourself open to these sorts of things when you don't hard check the sources you use to make points. Don't post links if you only have a brief time to scan over them. There is no real time limit you have to follow when responding to another post, take your time research your links then post them. You seem to come into topics posting links way to often with just a short scan and it has lead to people just assuming every link you throw out there to be of the same low value.


April 24th, 2014, 3:33 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3142
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Beyond 8 million: Obamacare math
rao wrote:
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Rao: I made a claim based upon an article I'd heard discussed and I was having difficulty looking it up because I didn't use the right terminology in the search window. The first couple of links spoke of the same general topic, but I can not say who the organizations were that wrote about the topic. In my brief scan they spoke of the same general topic that I was looking for, so I copied and pasted the link. The last one, was the one I'd been referencing and I did go through that one with more accuracy because it appeared to be so close to what I'd heard. That was the one I noted by FOUND IT. What I did not do is follow it up with Snopes, or whothunkit, or whatever, because I don't operate in that realm.

The difficulty here was not that it was debunked, but the way it was debunked. Adult conversation is mutually respectful even in disagreement, it's about the delivery.


I don't disagree that some people like to take jabs at you and maybe can be a little too harsh, but you leave yourself open to these sorts of things when you don't hard check the sources you use to make points. Don't post links if you only have a brief time to scan over them. There is no real time limit you have to follow when responding to another post, take your time research your links then post them. You seem to come into topics posting links way to often with just a short scan and it has lead to people just assuming every link you throw out there to be of the same low value.

Exactly this. You asked earlier about specific things you could read to understand my mentality, but there really isn't any single thing I can think of to point you towards. It's more of an overall philosophy. Rao hit it on the head: when you see something, don't accept it at face value. Also don't just find one article that you agree with and assume it's true. Search. Figure out if what you think to be true actually is. In fact, I think seeking out proof that you're wrong is the best way to approach it. That way, if you still can't find anything that disputes or contradicts your view, you can be reasonably sure that you're correct. Take discussions of the Lions as an example. There have been many times when I've had a sort of "prevailing wisdom" about one thing or another with regard to the team, but then I sought out the actual data on it and realized I was wrong. I didn't seek to prove my point by finding specific data. Instead I sought to prove myself wrong, and succeeded. It takes a level of comfort with being wrong and lack of pride to be able to change your mind, but if you can do it, it really does bolster your arguments. I think that's the best I can come up with right now. I'll think about it again tomorrow (it's getting late here in London) and see if I come up with anything else.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


April 24th, 2014, 5:30 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Beyond 8 million: Obamacare math
Can I ask a question: Is that considered critical thinking? How many of you are college educated?

You both raise valid points and I appreciate your candid, and respectful delivery. I left high school and went straight into the Navy, and after the Navy went into Community College for a little under 2 years. I did not have a lot of research papers, or English Lit work to do, and so I'm wondering if I never really learned to the process by which you guys are operating in. I do see what you are saying about taking things at face value, and appreciate you bringing it up. Thanks...

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


April 24th, 2014, 9:49 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3142
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: Beyond 8 million: Obamacare math
WarEr4Christ wrote:
Can I ask a question: Is that considered critical thinking? How many of you are college educated?

You both raise valid points and I appreciate your candid, and respectful delivery. I left high school and went straight into the Navy, and after the Navy went into Community College for a little under 2 years. I did not have a lot of research papers, or English Lit work to do, and so I'm wondering if I never really learned to the process by which you guys are operating in. I do see what you are saying about taking things at face value, and appreciate you bringing it up. Thanks...

Yeah that's basically critical thinking. Essentially just analyzing information and being a skeptic.

As for your other question, I can only answer for myself. Yes, I am college educated. I have a Mechanical Engineering degree from Michigan Tech and an MBA from Duke.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” - Neil deGrasse Tyson


April 25th, 2014, 3:11 am
Profile
NFL Veteran

Joined: November 28th, 2007, 12:50 pm
Posts: 1387
Location: Newport Beach, Ca
Post Re: Beyond 8 million: Obamacare math
I myself didn't finish college but I did go for sometime. I think I get my way of looking at things from my parents. Both have always been kind of guarded people and never take things at face value, so I do the same. Only difference is I'm not guarded at all with new people and freely talk to anyone. I feel like I found a nice balance of taking in new things without being naive about it. I really try to look at all the things I post with a skeptics eye before I post them and I still sometimes post things I read later thinking how did I ever get to that conclusion.


April 25th, 2014, 8:42 am
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3039
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Beyond 8 million: Obamacare math
That could be the key then.... Although you may think otherwise I don't believe everything I read, I do process through a lot, but I also have moments where I get caught in the details. In the service we would call it baffling with bs. A lot of times I'll take the initial step, but then to go beyond that to go through snopes or whatever is more involved that I care to be, only because I move along to the next subject.

As for my faith, I'm pretty firm there, only because of the experiences that I've lived, and there are so many instances. I've seen the power of God at work, seen it delivered through my voice on one particular occasion, and also have been on the receiving end of His rebuke. I've tried SO hard to communicate these experiences, but what I've discovered in the frustration is that it is personal to me. It would be like TDJ trying to tell me about Mechanical Engineering, I could learn all the theory and book work, but until I put it into practice for myself, I wouldn't have the experience to back up the theory.

Believe me, it's one of the biggest struggles I face is how do I communicate what I know to those who would like to believe, if only they had the proof. Physically, that's fairly easy because we'd have the interaction to go off of, but in this context we only have words, and opinions, and nothing physical to back it up with, and that's the hard part I think.

Thanks for the thoughts.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


April 25th, 2014, 8:56 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.