[KSagal]

Bob, and the man with no name....

You guys need to at least try to see that there are many people who do not go to Huffington Post, because of several carefully edited clips that make it seem that one thing is being said, when it is not as it seems...

That bill did include penalties and jail time, but they were removed before it was passed. That does not mean that it never had the jail provision, or that someone lied when they spoke of the jail time as a penalty for not buying health care from government approved insurance companies...

The Coburn piece was after it was passed. I noticed that all the clips from the FOX news channel had their date stamps removed. How convenient.

O'Reilly did say that no one ever said it, and that was wrong. He went on to explain that no said it after it was removed, but your clip does not show that part, because it does not perpetuate the lie...

You can tell things that are untrue all you like. You can tell things that may or may not be true all you like... You can espouse your opinions as self evident, or obvious, when they may be to you, but not to others... But none of these things make them facts...

I would like a direct response to this possibility... I suspect that one reason that severe penalties including fines and jail were removed from the bill before it was passed as a result of many people pointing these penalties out... I think that all those clips pressured the Democrats who wrote this bill to improve it by removing that particular bad section... What do you think about that?

You are both condemning the GOP for being shut out, or maybe even for saying that they chose to not participate (No GOP politicians were named in this evidence of a strategy, just talking heads) but forgot to mention how the Democrats had no problem changing the voting rules, made all kinds of deals like for cornhuskers and the LA Purchase, and for Dodds take home dollars for an out of plan hospital... Your argument to attack the GOP for one party acting poorly weakens when you fail to mention the current excesses of the party in power...

I understand your position, you both state it clearly. Just because I may not agree does not mean I will not listen to reason, it just means that what I consider to be reasonable is not what you consider to be reasonable... I have offered what is clearly and obviously strong arguments, and you have not bought in to my view, so clearly you are no more likely to listen to reason than me...

If you take bits and pieces of video clips and edit them sufficiently, and remove the dates and pay no attention to the order or context, you can prove that Democrats are against women voting, or that Jim Crowe was a brilliant man... While it can be done, it would not be reasonable, unless you gave it appropriate context and remark that it is a very dated and politically incorrect position that may have been common at the time, but is no longer appropriate...