Robert Snow
New Member
Since your question has already been answered I will refer you to post # 5
Nice dodge.
I would at least expect a "reverend" to tell the truth. I guess this isn't always the case.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Since your question has already been answered I will refer you to post # 5
Even the Dems aren't foolish enough to put language like that in the actual bill. 'Death panels' refers to the practical outworking of what the bill says, not the words the bill uses.
Show me where the bill specifically says there will NOT be something that could end up functioning as a 'death panel' under whatever official name it is given. With the overwhelming necessity to reduce spending under a plan like this, that's the more relevant question.
Nice dodge.
I would at least expect a "reverend" to tell the truth. I guess this isn't always the case.
Another dodge. You make the accusation through the article you post. It says "death panel," so it is your responsibility to show where in the bill the words are used. Of course you can't and thus you are simply spreading the fear mongering and misinformation.
Show us specifically where in the bill it says, "death panel." You can't, thus you are being untruthful as is the article. Not honest or ethical for a "reverent."
Originally Posted by Robert Snow View Post
Nice dodge.
I would at least expect a "reverend" to tell the truth. I guess this isn't always the case.
Are you really that dense?
Wow, an admission that you do not tell the truth. Amazing.
How exactly do you translate the words, "are you really that dense" into an admission that someone is not telling the truth?
What is amazing to me is how you can believe that you occupy the moral high ground on any issue after knowingly voting for the abortion supporter/promoter that you helped to put in an office where he can be sure to see that as many unborn innocents are murdered as he possibly can.
Originally Posted by Robert Snow View Post
Nice dodge.
I would at least expect a "reverend" to tell the truth. I guess this isn't always the case.
Are you really that dense?
Please re-read my post (or maybe read it carefully for the first time). I specifically said that those words are not used in the bill. I also specifically said that the issue isn't what words are used, but how the words can be applied. The Bill of Rights says nothing about abortion, but your side found a 'right' to legal abortion in it. Is it such a stretch to think that liberals who have no respect for one end of life will be willing to sacrifice people at the other end when there are not enough doctors and dollars to go around and decisions must be made about who gets what? Since so much health care resources are used by those near the end of their lives, that would be the most efficient place to cut. The fact that the words 'death panel' do not appear in the bill does not in any way preclude something that functions as a 'death panel' from coming into existence. If you can't grasp that, at least don't keep making posts mindless chanting "The bill doesn't say 'death panel'" as if that was a clever and relevant point. Start addressing the complexities of the situation, and stop displaying an extremely simplistic level of thinking that only makes you look foolish.Another dodge. You make the accusation through the article you post. It says "death panel," so it is your responsibility to show where in the bill the words are used. Of course you can't and thus you are simply spreading the fear mongering and misinformation.
Show us specifically where in the bill it says, "death panel." You can't, thus you are being untruthful as is the article. Not honest or ethical for a "reverent."
LOL, did you not read the response he was responding to? He said that he expected truth and ethics from a "reverant." Rev. responded "are you that dense?"
A careful and thoughtful reader would have understood that Rev was referring to the responder's inability to see the answer to his question is contained in post #5.
Given the qualifiers which have stated above I am able to understand why you would not take that reference from Rev's prior post.
Not in that reply. He should be more careful and clear in his meaning. Actually post number 5 is not an answer but a dodge.
Palin was wrong about the "death panels". There was no such language in the bill.
Show where the bill says "death panel."
Health care is being rationed today. There are already invisible "death panels" in place. The rich get the care and the poor die. Where in the Bible can I find a justification for that?
If you're referring to me as an example, you're dead wrong. I'm a staunch opponent of socialized healthcare, and I abhor this bill 100%. That said, I've read the bill, and can assert with authority that there is nothing in the bill that remotely implies a "death panel" or anything of the sort.
The bill deduces Medicare by $500 billion over the next 10 years which means that some doctors will limit the number of Medicare patients they see which automatically means rationing and the democrat/marxist can claim innocence.
I wasn't addressing how DC works. I was addressing the content of this bill. There is no language in the bill that remotely resembles a "death panel" as described by Palin.You may think you speak with authority but you are apparently ignorant of the way DC works.
I wasn't addressing how DC works. I was addressing the content of this bill. There is no language in the bill that remotely resembles a "death panel" as described by Palin.
You're right. It doesn't change the facts. The fact is there is no language in the bill that remotely resembles a "death panel" as described by Palin.You can say it until your blue in the face. But none of it will change facts.