My My....such a rant. First of all, I do not need to further a point which has already been made.
That's a euphemism for "I refuse to provide proof for the outlandish statements of fact that I make."
I don't answer the silly question because you speak in absolute terms and I suppose general terms for conversation. Have we not gone over this?
You don't answer the question because you can't. Otherwise you would. If you were speaking from fact rather than belief, it would be exceedingly easy to state which agency. If you suppose general terms for conversation, then it would really be way better if you wrote them in qualified generalities instead of absolutes. Otherwise all you're doing in backpedaling with that answer. Asking which government agency is not a silly question. It's a valid question.
The explanation of my meaning of forced vaccination has been stated. It's of my opinion anytime you are denied entry or participation by refusing the shots, you must come to the realization that if you want to be in the gang.....you'll have to comply. I call that force, and questioned answered.
Would have been better if you had posted that in the first place, instead of the ludicrous statement you made.
An extreme and rare example....from Australia? Really?
Yes, of rare exceptions to the rule, and even in the case of the nurses above, they weren't vaccinated.
Now, if your definition of forced is the gurney scenario....you can rant on some more.
Well, my definition of "forced" is to be compelled to do something against your will, since, you know, that's what forced means.
OK, first, one rare exception does not prove the rule. It absolutely does not prove they
tend to do anything, much less "tend to debunk things in which I know cannot be debunked and are absolute fact." Two, that's not even proof that Snope debunks absolute fact, or even that they are biased. The example is an
accusation that they lied, with the accusation and the "letter" he wrote to Snopes, yet nothing of Snopes showing where they lied, no proof whatsoever that they got it wrong.
You know why? Because it's made up. Purely fabricated. A stone cold lie. Funny that, a lie about someone else lying. Gotta love it. And you believe it, which is even funnier.
The fact is, the WND articel had to be pulled and rewritten, because it, too was a fabrication based upon faulty research and bias. They backpedaled faster than you have. From the WND regarding the dockets:
"Those cases, in fact, were a series of unrelated disputes pending before the Supreme Court," the disclaimer states, "and the references have been removed from this report."
WND deleted the original article and three days later replaced it with a completely different article on another subject.
snopes.com: Elena Kagan Tied to Obama's Birth Certificate?
A plethora of examples from this silly "fact or fiction according to us" website.
A plethora of examples of bias, perhaps, but none of Snopes debunking or attempting to debunk an absolute fact. Not one.
As for the Op and Obama care? What do you not understand about the medical profession, Fed Gov controlling states through mandates and money, and all like manner of things outside the box. This he said/she said, what do the words mean to you, and how absolute everything is; has once again become a bore. While I enjoyed the nice little twist you placed on progression of conversation here......it's time to get some work done.
This is not a he said/she said, it's me calling you out on a bald-face lie that you refuse to support. You stated, without generalities or reservations, the absolute fact of, "This scenario is most definitely covered, as the government agency
will decide what will be treated or not, and whether it will be treated, or not."
That's a lie. "This scenario is most definitely covered..." is not a general statement, it's a statement of absolute fact. And it's one that you cannot prove in any way, shape or form. "as the government agency
will decide what will be treated or not, and whether it will be treated, or not," is also a lie, because that is not in Obamacare. It's a common, rational and valid fear of Obamacare that it might happen, but it's not a fact by any criteria you choose to apply.
I still find it incredibly ironic that you would pen such a silly paragraph:
"Either read the bill and know what is present....or at least dispute things following some research? Schooling oneself in preparation for debate requires you know at least some of what this bill contains. It's over 2000 pages, so good luck. Excerpts will do, if your so inclined to dispute."
Ironic because you haven't read the bill or the law, and instead have gotten your information from Bloggers who haven't, either. Ironic because you haven't done any credible research on the subject. Ironic because you failed utterly to school yourself in preparation for debate, display zero critical thinking skills, and have no clue of what the bill actually contains. Ironic because you believed, completely, that it's at least 2000 pages, not because you read it as you implied, but by virtue of some biased like-minded Blogger telling you so. Ironic because after requesting excerpts to prove a negative, you refuse to prove supporting excerpts to substantiate your claims.
I can imagine that you are bored.
