CS writes:
Obviously, I never said that I accept only one defintion.
Do I have to reconstruct the whole argument with you again. It seems I have to do this a lot.
Lets see you started with this.
CS writes:
How is medical insurance that is only available to high-ranking state officials anything like socialized medicine, which is available to everyone? Just because its subsidized?
Message 2
You clearly are stating that this is what you accept as the definition for "socialized medicine". When you were shown that that is not the only definition for the term you responded with this.
Epic fail.
Your's is from the "Medical Dictionary", the second one.
Message 17Still don't see the epic fail. You were clearly shown there were other definitions, but seemingly refuse to accept them, because your next statement was
The third one is the same from what I just quoted from wiki:
As if this is some sort of exoneration. I never stated that your idea was not a valid definition. All I have stated is that there are other definitions for the term which you seem to have wanted to deny as having any validity.
Not violating forum rules. You made the argument that this is not socialized medicine we are talking about. I am providing evidence that the term has many more meanings than the one that you seem to think is the most important.
What do you want me to add to these posts showing that you are wrong. There are times when someone makes a glaring mistake the only and best thing to do is to post the info that shows the glaring mistake. I am not sure what you and AdminPD expected me to say in the post. You clearly were unwilling to accept that you definition was not the sole definition of the term. More evidence was needed to show you you were wrong.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts