- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 9,796
- Reaction score
- 2,590
- Location
- out yonder
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Truth Detector;
First off, what part of my comments had anything “partisan” in them? Oh that’s right; NONE of them did.
I see that aside from your being incapable of comprehending anything written in the English language you also have trouble distinguishing the terms “agenda” from “partisan.”
Your source and the data therein, are derived from an organization devoted to a single payer public healthcare system and make no bones about it. What part of AGENDA do you continue to not comprehend?
I am not sure if your are just intellectually incapable of comprehension or just selectively choosing to feign complete and utter ignorance.
As for the non-partisan BS, I find that claim on the website with the AGENDA amusing in that its founder is a complete and total Liberal Democrat. The notion that this is not a partisan issue certainly would require the willing suspension of disbelief:
In 1997, Mr. Pollack was appointed by President Clinton as the sole consumer representative on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry. In that capacity, Mr. Pollack helped prepare the Patients’ Bill of Rights that has been enacted by many state legislatures.
Mr. Pollack received his law degree from New York University where he was an Arthur Garfield Hays Civil Liberties Fellow.
:spin:Mr. Pollack was also the Founding Executive Director of the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), a leading national organization focused on eliminating hunger in the U.S. Two of his notable accomplishment at FRAC include: (1) arguing two successful cases on the same day in the U.S. Supreme Court to secure food aid for low-income Americans; and (2) the successful federal litigation that resulted in the creation of the WIC program for malnourished mothers and infants.
You are not serious.
How were those policies, which he ran on, not supported by a majority if he won?
Ninety percent of Obama's voters couldn't name a single policy he stood for. They voted for him because (a) he's a minority, and (b) he's prettier than the other guy.
More than any election to date, this was an American Idol contest.
Silly me, thinking you to be a PARTISIAN. :roll:
from post # 55. This interchange between two Democrats was priceless.
From post#60. The good news about this thread topic is that many are not falling for the BS this adminstration is spewing.
From post #64. The notion that my comments above are about nothing is merely another of your Liberal "because I say its so.
Only in TD land is “healthcare reform” considered an agenda,
consider these facts TD.
Fact=National health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009, accounting for 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).
Fact=The average increase in national health expenditures is expected to be 6.2 percent per year, while the GDP is expected to increase only 4.1 percent per year.
Fact= The average employer-sponsored premium for a family of four costs close to $13,000 a year.
Fact=The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that job-based health insurance could increase 100 percent over the next decade.
Fact=Families USA’s mission is to achieve high-quality, affordable health coverage for everyone in the U.S.
After all of these facts TD are you saying that healthcare doesn’t need reforming?BY the way there is someone else that thinks healthcare needs reforming.
Who knows you might have even voted for this one.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, said in a health care speech earlier this month: "We've got to stop that hidden tax. Everyone must be insured."
Intellectually incapable of comprehension…. you must be looking in mirror . I think that’s your bag, after all you seem to confuse illegals with indigents.
So…it doesn’t alter the fact that 37% of insurance payments go for indigent care. Do you have anything to refute that,or are you just intent on smearing the messenger?
Yada,yada,yada .Is that all you have, smear the messenger. How about proving him wrong instead of this BS your throwing out?
Once again, what remarks of mine in this debate are “partisan?” Post #55 was merely describing the participants actually having the interview; I guess in “Doncland” being partisan is merely referring to actual Democrats as being, well Democrats. Give me a great big DUH here.
What part of #60 suggests anything partisan; it is merely a fact that this Administration is spewing a pile of BS which has been disputed by his own party members and the CBO; I guess in “Doncland”, claiming an Administration is spewing obvious BS is now “partisan” even though Democrats are doing the same thing. Give me a great big DUH here.
What part of post #64 is partisan? Are you now claiming that you are not a Liberal now? I guess in “Doncland” referring to someone who lists their party affiliation as Liberal is now being “partisan.” Give me a great big DUH.
You’re just full of great big DUHs aren’t you Donc?
Only in “Doncland” is an agenda to implement single payer healthcare NOT an agenda.
Your typical emotional hysterics and suspect data aside, where in any debate have I suggested that our healthcare system doesn’t need reform? Oh that’s right, this is just another lie coming from you in your desperate efforts to argue that the ONLY solution is a Government one based on your historical ignorance and selective use of facts.
The only thing more laughable here than your obvious attempts to distort and lie about others positions is your farcical belief that only Government can reform healthcare and Government will do it at a lower cost and manage it effectively; contrary to EVERY Government program ever implemented and the FACT that they cannot even manage their own budget and have run the deficit up to $1.6 trillion of which this program will add another $2 trillion.
It begs the question; you have to be kidding me right? What level of willful denial and hyper partisan demagoguery does one have to engage in to believe such obvious nonsense?
I am always amused when Democrats trot out moderate Republicans that agree with them as somehow a substantive argument to support their preposterous positions, their lies and their distortions.
Another lie postulated by someone who mistakes hyper partisan emotional hyperbole for substance.
Once more, you whine about the fact that your data cannot be supported by any credible sources; how does one prove FALSE data wrong?
You display a stunning disregard for honesty, facts and having a civil debate due to your rabid hyper partisan views. I won’t engage your disingenuous attempts any longer; you get the last word. It is patently obvious you have no clue what you are ranting about and your obvious attempts to act childish don’t make your arguments any more credible.
Ninety percent of Obama's voters couldn't name a single policy he stood for. They voted for him because (a) he's a minority, and (b) he's prettier than the other guy.
More than any election to date, this was an American Idol contest.
Please offer some substantiation for this, or this yet another one of your hyperpartisan premises that has no basis in reality?
97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates
Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions
57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing
Quit making up definitions! Just because taxes will be forced to go up doesn't mean that it is a tax increase! You and your little dictionary can go to hell!
Just because taxes will be forced to go up doesn't mean that it is a tax increase, huh? Pretty sure that if taxes are forced up it's a tax increase.
i believe that poll is fake.Ask and you shall recieve:
Profoundly Uninformed Voters: How Obama Got Elected | Red County
This is the Zogby poll the above is taken from:
http://www.zogby.com/news/wf-dfs.pdf
This straight from the uninformed horses mouthes:
YouTube - How Obama Got Elected... Interviews With Obama Voters
Does that work for you?
i believe that poll is fake.
Zogby International has been tracking public opinion since 1984 in North America, Latin America, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe...
"We stand by the results our survey work on behalf of John Ziegler, as we stand by all of our work. We reject the notion that this was a push poll because it very simply wasn't. It was a legitimate effort to test the knowledge of voters who cast ballots for Barack Obama in the Nov. 4 election. Push polls are a malicious effort to sway public opinion one way or the other, while message and knowledge testing is quite another effort of public opinion research that is legitimate inquiry and has value in the public square. In this case, the respondents were given a full range of responses and were not pressured or influenced to respond in one way or another. This poll was not designed to hurt anyone, which is obvious as it was conducted after the election. The client is free to draw his own conclusions about the research, as are bloggers and other members of society. But Zogby International is a neutral party in this matter. We were hired to test public opinion on a particular subject and with no ax to grind, that's exactly what we did. We don't have to agree or disagree with the questions, we simply ask them and provide the client with a fair and accurate set of data reflecting public opinion." - John Zogby
Ask and you shall recieve:
Profoundly Uninformed Voters: How Obama Got Elected | Red County
This is the Zogby poll the above is taken from:
http://www.zogby.com/news/wf-dfs.pdf
This straight from the uninformed horses mouthes:
YouTube - How Obama Got Elected... Interviews With Obama Voters
Does that work for you?
Yeah, I love how during the elections people like McCain and Palin were forced to go through dozens of "hostile" interviews with the likes of CNN, NBC, ABC and MSNBC, but Obama just to ignore them entirely by ignoring Fox. It's a real disadvantage for Republicans; they must do tough interviews but democrats have plenty of safe-havens.
Or not.
This is more of a penalty than a tax, like speeding tickets. Taxes are levied based on one's economic condition, whether or not you have a certain income, possess certain capital, or bought a particular item. Penalties and fees are for not living up to your duties and legal obligations.
Please offer some substantiation for this, or this yet another one of your hyperpartisan premises that has no basis in reality?
Once upon a time, being president required some degree of qualifications and a resume of experience to point to.
When was that? Link?
When was that? Link?
I am always amused by people who require a link to the OBVIOUS.
Tell me something, what part of managing one of the largest Governments and most powerful country on the globe suggests that a candidate for the job should NOT require "some degree of qualifications and a resume of experience to point to?"
I am always amused by people who require a link to the OBVIOUS.
Tell me something, what part of managing one of the largest Governments and most powerful country on the globe suggests that a candidate for the job should NOT require "some degree of qualifications and a resume of experience to point to?"
Oh so you are going to post any facts as usual. LOL
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?