Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cboldt

You lied by saying there was no opt-out clause. Show some personal integrity and admit you were either ignorant or lying about the opt-out. Spinning the supposed difficulty of opting out of this EO that never went into effect distracts from the fact there was an opt-out, and that Perry mentioned it in his brief press release after issuing the flawed EO.


77 posted on 09/19/2011 10:46:43 AM PDT by Carling (Sarah Palin Supported TARP Before She Was Against It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]


To: Carling
-- You lied by saying there was no opt-out clause. Show some personal integrity and admit you were either ignorant or lying about the opt-out. --

Against my better judgment, I'm going to be polite toward you for this one more post.

What I said in the first place was this:

Well, Perry's EO didn't "include an opt out." What it did was direct the relevant agency to add "apply via internet" to the methods available (mail, fax, in person) for requesting the state-issued opt-out affidavit. The opt-out itself was created by the Texas legislature, in 2003.
You isolated part of that in order to claim I said there was no opt-out clause. But most readers will see I put "include an opt out" in scare quotes; said that Perry directed a state agency to accept applications for the opt-out affidavit via internet; and said that the op-out was created by the legislature in 2003.

"Include an opt out" was in care quotes because it's important to read on, to discern what is meant. If Perry had been mute on opt out, an opt out would exist. The same opt-out existed before and after his EO. The legislature made it in 2003.

In post 26 of this thread, I provided substantiation for every one of my fact contentions, and restated the general point that the opt-out option predated the EO, and other than giving one more means to apply for the affidavit, made no change to the existing procedure (which is available for ALL vaccines, not just the HPV vaccine).

At any rate, that post reproduces the words of Perry's EO respecting the opt-out, so it's hard for me to see how you can support the claim that I maintain "there was no opt-out clause." My point has been to describe the meaning and effect of "the opt out clause," and as between the legislature and Perry, who provided what part of that meaning and effect.

Seeing that you took post 29 as more lies, I said this, to you, later ...

I suppose my remark that Perry's EO didn't include an opt-out was technically false, because the opt-out existed for years before he issued the EO, and would automatically apply.

And in response, you say I am either a liar or ignorant, and you challenge me to show some personal integrity.

The ball is in your court.

81 posted on 09/19/2011 11:02:25 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson