Jump to content


Put divisive health care debate on hold

- - - - -
  • You cannot reply to this topic

#1 clearvision

  • Board Member
  • 14,926 posts
  • Texas

Posted 13 January 2011 - 10:16 PM

CNN:

Members of Congress recently gathered on the steps of the Capitol to observe a moment of silence in honor of their wounded colleague, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, as well as the six people who were killed and 13 who were wounded in last week's shooting rampage in Tucson, Arizona. :snip:

Both of these views are predictable, but they're also awfully petty and shortsighted. There will be plenty of time for lawmakers to reassume the roles in which they feel most comfortable. Republicans can go back to trying to undo health care reform, and Democrats can go back to trying to stop them. Whatever support the parties can count on right now -- in Congress, and around the country -- will still be there for them in six months. Nothing will change.

This isn't like suggesting that Congress postpone the health care battle until next year, when little will be accomplished because of the presidential election. This is six months. That is not long enough to derail an agenda, but it is long enough to let tempers cool.

The country needs for Congress to take a break, and to acknowledge that what happened in Tucson was a big deal and something that has enormous significance for our political system and our country. Americans need time to process these tragic events and heal before jumping back into the volatile and combative health care debate. Lawmakers can either help them with the healing process, or they can stand in the way. :snip:

-------
They are going to try and use Tucson to stamp down any sort of debate or change....

#2 ErnstBlofeld

  • Inactive Membership
  • 6,972 posts
  • California

Posted 13 January 2011 - 10:21 PM

Speaker Boehner and House Majority Leader Cantor has already scheduled a vote for next week. Its time to get back to business. Secondly, Obamacare is making its way through the courts so you cannot stop it.

#3 Casino67

  • Members
  • 11,854 posts
  • Delaware

Posted 13 January 2011 - 10:23 PM

LOL, someone needs to fix their Spellcheck.

#4 Rheo

  • Board Member
  • 22,714 posts
  • Texas

Posted 13 January 2011 - 10:27 PM

LOL, someone needs to fix their Spellcheck.

?

#5 ErnstBlofeld

  • Inactive Membership
  • 6,972 posts
  • California

Posted 13 January 2011 - 10:27 PM

LOL, someone needs to fix their Spellcheck.

It looks clean to me. You may want a second look. Time for a magnifying glass
Posted Image

#6 ErnstBlofeld

  • Inactive Membership
  • 6,972 posts
  • California

Posted 13 January 2011 - 10:36 PM


LOL, someone needs to fix their Spellcheck.

?

His comment was aimed at me. He did not look closely.

#7 Rheo

  • Board Member
  • 22,714 posts
  • Texas

Posted 13 January 2011 - 10:37 PM



LOL, someone needs to fix their Spellcheck.

?

His comment was aimed at me. He did not look closely.

Actually, he did. You changed your comments 3 times in under 5 minutes.

#8 ErnstBlofeld

  • Inactive Membership
  • 6,972 posts
  • California

Posted 13 January 2011 - 10:39 PM




LOL, someone needs to fix their Spellcheck.

?

His comment was aimed at me. He did not look closely.

Actually, he did. You changed your comments 3 times in under 5 minutes.

What is the point of having the full editor feature on the site to edit or change your work when you can't use it. If you cannot use it get rid of the feature completely.

#9 Casino67

  • Members
  • 11,854 posts
  • Delaware

Posted 13 January 2011 - 10:43 PM

Come on, it was just a comment. Not meant to start a flame war. Sort of proves I read Ernst's posts. :)

#10 ErnstBlofeld

  • Inactive Membership
  • 6,972 posts
  • California

Posted 13 January 2011 - 10:43 PM





LOL, someone needs to fix their Spellcheck.

?

His comment was aimed at me. He did not look closely.

Actually, he did. You changed your comments 3 times in under 5 minutes.

What is the point of having the full editor feature on the site to edit or change your work when you can't use it. If you cannot use it get rid of the feature completely.


shoutRheo

So what do you think. Should we have time(at least 30 seconds to a minute) to clean up our work(clean up misspellings and grammar) and use the edit feature or completely get rid of it if we cannnot use the feature

#11 Rheo

  • Board Member
  • 22,714 posts
  • Texas

Posted 13 January 2011 - 10:48 PM






LOL, someone needs to fix their Spellcheck.

?

His comment was aimed at me. He did not look closely.

Actually, he did. You changed your comments 3 times in under 5 minutes.

What is the point of having the full editor feature on the site to edit or change your work when you can't use it. If you cannot use it get rid of the feature completely.


shoutRheo

So what do you think. Should we have time(at least a minute) to clean up our work(clean up misspellings and grammar) and use the edit feature or completely get rid of it if we cannnot use the feature

Ernst, I don't think anyone has a problem with changing and correcting spelling/grammatical errors, but adding and changing comments after the fact is not fair. IMO.

I am now taking myself out of this discussion.

#12 ErnstBlofeld

  • Inactive Membership
  • 6,972 posts
  • California

Posted 13 January 2011 - 10:50 PM







LOL, someone needs to fix their Spellcheck.

?

His comment was aimed at me. He did not look closely.

Actually, he did. You changed your comments 3 times in under 5 minutes.

What is the point of having the full editor feature on the site to edit or change your work when you can't use it. If you cannot use it get rid of the feature completely.



Usually a term called an "after thought" happens and we need to put it in
shoutRheo

So what do you think. Should we have time(at least a minute) to clean up our work(clean up misspellings and grammar) and use the edit feature or completely get rid of it if we cannnot use the feature

Ernst, I don't think anyone has a problem with changing and correcting spelling/grammatical errors, but adding and changing comments after the fact is not fair. IMO.

I am now taking myself out of this discussion.


Usually a term called an "after thought" happens and we need to put it in to bolster an arguement. Which I think is all right,IMHO

#13 Rheo

  • Board Member
  • 22,714 posts
  • Texas

Posted 13 January 2011 - 10:52 PM

See, you have now edited your reply that I already responded to. It really makes for hard reading and understanding on what you are saying when you change things after the fact.

I'm calling it a night. Best wishes to you.

#14 ErnstBlofeld

  • Inactive Membership
  • 6,972 posts
  • California

Posted 13 January 2011 - 10:53 PM

See, you have now edited your reply that I already responded to. It really makes for hard reading and understanding on what you are saying when you change things after the fact.

I'm calling it a night. Best wishes to you.


Backing out on something ? A raw nerve?

#15 Casino67

  • Members
  • 11,854 posts
  • Delaware

Posted 13 January 2011 - 10:56 PM

"arguement" LOL. Or have you fixed it already?

#16 ErnstBlofeld

  • Inactive Membership
  • 6,972 posts
  • California

Posted 13 January 2011 - 10:58 PM

"arguement" LOL. Or have you fixed it already?



I think we should be allowed to fix something. If they do not like it minus well take away the entire edit feature. They are starting to be hypocrites about it.

#17 ErnstBlofeld

  • Inactive Membership
  • 6,972 posts
  • California

Posted 13 January 2011 - 10:59 PM


"arguement" LOL. Or have you fixed it already?



I think we should be allowed to fix something. If they do not like it minus well take away the entire edit feature. They are starting to be hypocrites about it.

We should have our entire thought clearly on screen and be allowed to edit our arguements.If they do not want that,have it TOS style where there is no editing.

#18 Rheo

  • Board Member
  • 22,714 posts
  • Texas

Posted 13 January 2011 - 11:09 PM



"arguement" LOL. Or have you fixed it already?



I think we should be allowed to fix something. If they do not like it minus well take away the entire edit feature. They are starting to be hypocrites about it.

We should have our entire thought clearly on screen and be allowed to edit our arguements.If they do not want that,have it TOS style where there is no editing.

You have added comments with editing to this post 3 times. Not changing spelling or grammatical errors, but changing the words in your posts...adding to them. Why not just do a new post with a new thought.
No other members are abusing the edit function. Why do you insist on doing so?
We brought this function to our members so they could clean up an occasional ooops..spelled that wrong. Not change the words so the people responding are responding to a completely different post unknowingly. That is dishonest to me.

You can defend your own actions, I'm done trying to explain why I feel the way I do about it.

#19 Casino67

  • Members
  • 11,854 posts
  • Delaware

Posted 13 January 2011 - 11:11 PM

Good night shout Rheo. Sleep tight and warmly.

#20 ErnstBlofeld

  • Inactive Membership
  • 6,972 posts
  • California

Posted 13 January 2011 - 11:12 PM




"arguement" LOL. Or have you fixed it already?



I think we should be allowed to fix something. If they do not like it minus well take away the entire edit feature. They are starting to be hypocrites about it.

We should have our entire thought clearly on screen and be allowed to edit our arguements.If they do not want that,have it TOS style where there is no editing.

You have added comments with editing to this post 3 times. Not changing spelling or grammatical errors, but changing the words in your posts...adding to them. Why not just do a new post with a new thought.
No other members are abusing the edit function. Why do you insist on doing so?
We brought this function to our members so they could clean up an occasional ooops..spelled that wrong. Not change the words so the people responding are responding to a completely different post unknowingly. That is dishonest to me.

You can defend your own actions, I'm done trying to explain why I feel the way I do about it.


I do it because I want a clear arguement and a single thought. Sometimes, the after thought creeps in or a piece of information and I want to add it to my arguement. I guess something you do not want to have. You want the one sided arguements.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users