Obama '08?

I didnt say that ALL or even many of them were convicted of anything

so dont make that stupid attempt at an argument.

MM,

If I show you that the 47 million number is from a reliable government source which doesn't include the military or children (covered by their parents plan).

And if I can show you reliable polling data that most of these people don't have insurance because they can't afford it, and are very upset and worried about not having it.

Would this change your mind? (or would you at least admit this is a problem)

((BTW, this number is not from Obama although he may reference it)).

mysteryman wrote:

I didnt say that ALL or even many of them were convicted of anything

Precisely.

We're talking about people who are convicted of nothing. Going back a few pages, you'll notice that the discussion was about people who see American foreign policy in an unfavourable light.

You, on the other hand, argue that, hey, there's reason to be suspicious of them, because, after all, you'd also be suspicious of a convicted pedophile.

mysteryman wrote:

so dont make that stupid attempt at an argument.

I'll stay away from the stupid arguments if you'll promise not to bring your straw men to this thread.

Where does that number come from?
Ask Obama.

Im asking you, you used that number.


And of that 47 million, how many of them CHOOSE to not have health coverage because they dont think they will need it?
Who the heck wants health insurance? We'd rather do without, so we can die at an earlier age.

Or we are young, healthy, and in good physical health and dont believe we are at risk, so we CHOOSE not to have insurance.
We would rather use that money for other things.

How many of those 47 million are young children, covered by their parents plan?
If they're uninsured, they're not covered. DUH!

Not true!
I'm uninsured, but I'm covered as part of my military retirement.

How many of them are active duty military, covered by the govt, instead of having their own plan?
Refer to above answer.

And then refer to my response.I believe that 47 million number is misleading, and the true number is much less.
Proof?

Malarkey is not an acceptable response; you must challenge the statement from credible sources. You are the "malarkey" of a2k; you only provide personal opionion without any foundation.

old europe wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

I didnt say that ALL or even many of them were convicted of anything

Precisely.

We're talking about people who are convicted of nothing. Going back a few pages, you'll notice that the discussion was about people who see American foreign policy in an unfavourable light.

You, on the other hand, argue that, hey, there's reason to be suspicious of them, because, after all, you'd also be suspicious of a convicted pedophile.

mysteryman wrote:

so dont make that stupid attempt at an argument.

I'll stay away from the stupid arguments if you'll promise not to bring your straw men to this thread.

I try not to respond to mm, because he always brings up straw man issues not even related to the discussion. If we talk about A, he brings up F. One thing about mm, he is very creative - always bringing up negative scenarios; straw man.

The word "presumed" doesn't change anything. That you can identify a case in which the "presumed" murder got away with murder, doesn't change the legal system of this country. That you can conclude others presume OJ is innocent based on his trial goes beyond what is available in the legal system of this country. Not only are innocents found guilty, but those who have committed crimes have been found "not guilty."

Learn to live with it if you can; whatever humans do is not perfect.

individual is always innocent until proven guilty.

cicerone imposter wrote:

The word "presumed" doesn't change anything. That you can identify a case in which the "presumed" murder got away with murder, doesn't change the legal system of this country. That you can conclude others presume OJ is innocent based on his trial goes beyond what is available in the legal system of this country. Not only are innocents found guilty, but those who have committed crimes have been found "not guilty."

Learn to live with it if you can; whatever humans do is not perfect.

But according to you, if they are found "not guilty" then they didnt commit the crime.
After all, you did say...

Quote:

individual is always innocent until proven guilty.

So if they were not PROVEN guilty, then they did not commit a crime.
So, OJ must not have murdered his ex wife, did he?
And since Bush, Cheney, and every other repub hasnt been PROVEN to have committed the crimes you and others say they have, then they havent committed them.

mysteryman wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

The word "presumed" doesn't change anything. That you can identify a case in which the "presumed" murder got away with murder, doesn't change the legal system of this country. That you can conclude others presume OJ is innocent based on his trial goes beyond what is available in the legal system of this country. Not only are innocents found guilty, but those who have committed crimes have been found "not guilty."

Learn to live with it if you can; whatever humans do is not perfect.

But according to you, if they are found "not guilty" then they didnt commit the crime.
After all, you did say...

Quote:

individual is always innocent until proven guilty.

So if they were not PROVEN guilty, then they did not commit a crime.
So, OJ must not have murdered his ex wife, did he?
And since Bush, Cheney, and every other repub hasnt been PROVEN to have committed the crimes you and others say they have, then they havent committed them.

Don't waste your breath. c.i., as usual, has his own straw man going with all of this. The presumption of innocence isn't even applicable to anything okie said.

fishin, If, as you say, I have "straw man going with all of this" why do you bother reading my stuff? Talk about straw man.

old europe wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

You just now wake up to that, cyclops? So do you think we need millions of immigrants from Turkey and Pakistan, and if people are flying here from there, do you think they might deserve more scrutiny, or is that demonizing them?

Demonizing. One of the best ways to get people to hate you even worse, is to treat them as if they deserve suspicion and hate.

You gotta be a friend, to make friends...

Cycloptichorn

Would you say that if a convicted pedophile moved into your neighborhood and wanted to befreind you and your children?

Or would you mistrust and doubt that person?

Ah, yes.

Can you remind us what all Muslims are convicted of, mysteryman?

I didnt say that ALL or even many of them were convicted of anything, so dont make that stupid attempt at an argument.

I was simply responding to one comment made by Cyclo, where he said...

Quote:

Demonizing. One of the best ways to get people to hate you even worse, is to treat them as if they deserve suspicion and hate.

You gotta be a friend, to make friends...

So are you saying you would not be suspicious of a convicted pedophile that wanted to be friends with your children?

MM
I would like to point out that I believe we have the best justice system that money can buy.

rabel22 wrote:

MM
I would like to point out that I believe we have the best justice system that money can buy.

Now that's clever.

Never heard it put quite like that.

Unfortunately, there's truth in that statement. Justice has as much to do with how much money one has as with the legal system of our country.

Yeah, have a whole lots of money.