• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Help kids with cancer? Reid asks: 'Why would we want to do that?'[W:97]

because im not allowed to. read the dam forum rules ive received infractions for posting more then the first paragraph
please can I have a moderator come to this thread and explain the rules to this _____

So when someone told you (me) that Fox News distorted the context surrounding the Q&A session, because I had watched the clip on live tv some number of hours before this thread came up, and then proceeded to show the real footage and critique the writing of Fox's article-you provided no pushback? Really?

We're supposed to believe that it was all due to you not being able to put more than two paragraphs in the original post? You could have at the very least criticized it yourself, but you didn't. You ran with it. You even pushed back when I showed how it was a pretty bad piece. Now it's apparently none of that happened, it was just because of copyright issues.

Come now.
 
So when someone told you (me) that Fox News distorted the context surrounding the Q&A session, because I had watched the clip on live tv some number of hours before this thread came up, and then proceeded to show the real footage and critique the writing of Fox's article-you provided no pushback? Really?

We're supposed to believe that it was all due to you not being able to put more than two paragraphs in the original post? You could have at the very least criticized it yourself, but you didn't. You ran with it. You even pushed back when I showed how it was a pretty bad piece. Now it's apparently none of that happened, it was just because of copyright issues.

Come now.

and if or when you read the full article they go on and explain the full exchange just because it not in the first paragraph I posted because that is all im allowed to post doesn't make it out of context or deceitful it is BECAUSE THAT IS ALL IM ALLOWED TO DO
 
I take quotation marks seriously.
He was asked why he wouldn't approve funding the NIH since it might help kids with cancer.
He bobbed and weaved so Bash asked what I posted above and Reid answered what I posted above and then later tweeted what I posted above.
To me the tweet really makes the story.

Well, if you got the quotes pre-mangled by faux your respect of the quotes would have no bearing on the matter.
 
Well, if you got the quotes pre-mangled by faux your respect of the quotes would have no bearing on the matter.
the quotes are accurate you can watch the dam vid and see for your self
 
and if or when you read the full article they go on and explain the full exchange just because it not in the first paragraph I posted because that is all im allowed to post doesn't make it out of context or deceitful it is BECAUSE THAT IS ALL IM ALLOWED TO DO

Re-read the text and let's see.

Here's how they start to conclude the affair:

"Republicans are in such desperate straits that they have literally resorted to accusing me of not caring about kids with cancer. Shameful," his office tweeted.

Reid argues that the Republicans are trying to "pick and choose" what parts of government to keep open, and that they should be dropping their resistance to ObamaCare and voting to keep all of government open.

"You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow. What this is all about is ObamaCare. They are obsessed. I don't know what other word I can use," Reid said.

Now, in this instance, we have a break from the Q&A session and it now moves to Reid addressing criticism of the Q&A session.

So here's the problem.

Fox News's article ends the Q&A with it seeming like there was one question, no reiterated question, and no shortened second response. Then, Reid addresses criticism of the conference. Only after this then do we get a summarization and quotes from the Q&A session-but you do not know that reading the article. It sounds like it could have been taken from his response to criticism of the session rather than it coming directly from the session and before the comment that Fox decided to put front and center.

It throws out the context, gives readers no indication he actually said it during the session (in fact-before he said "why would we want to do that?", and we're expected to buy it.
 
yes it is

go to .56 sec into the vid and see for you self he stutters and stammers for a sec first befor he answers

Clear proof of liberal perfidy. :roll:
 
Still a gaffe on Reid's part. He's so far up Obama's rear-end that he's now calling considering individual appropriations bills (you know, how we funded govt for 200 years) crazy and evil. He's being an idiot, and the comment today simply confirms that he's only interested in one thing...pushing Obama's agenda no matter how destructive.
 
and if or when you read the full article they go on and explain the full exchange just because it not in the first paragraph I posted because that is all im allowed to post doesn't make it out of context or deceitful it is BECAUSE THAT IS ALL IM ALLOWED TO DO

Lol....somebody is ducking and dodging as per usual. You read the article and still decided to accept it for what it was. That has absolutely nothing to do with what percentage of the article you're allowed to post. It doesn't stop you from being objective in regards to what it is you're reading. However, instead, now you're doing what FOX did. Post part of the story and then run with your own opinion and bias the rest of the way. More of that great reading comprehension and objectivity you've displayed so often in this forum.
 
Lol....somebody is ducking and dodging as per usual. You read the article and still decided to accept it for what it was. That has absolutely nothing to do with what percentage of the article you're allowed to post. It doesn't stop you from being objective in regards to what it is you're reading. However, instead, now you're doing what FOX did. Post part of the story and then run with your own opinion and bias the rest of the way. More of that great reading comprehension and objectivity you've displayed so often in this forum.
no I watched the dam vid and came to my own conclusion and it sounds just like what Fox described it as. its you that cant admit that Reid is a low excuse of a human and he is purposely causing pain for political gain even if it kills a child
 
no I watched the dam vid

Good, too bad you didn't really do anything more than watch 1:16 minutes. Usually, stories have a lot more information behind than what is told. That has already been demonstrated to be the case here and yet you keep supporting what has already been discredited. Modus Operandi of all Libertarians: Lie, misrepresent, deny reality.
 
no I watched the dam vid and came to my own conclusion and it sounds just like what Fox described it as. its you that cant admit that Reid is a low excuse of a human and he is purposely causing pain for political gain even if it kills a child

Precisely...the Democrats are imposing as much pain as possible to get their way...like shutting vets out of memorials that honor their sacrifices or threatening default or cancelling SS checks.

This is only happening because of the Democrats. And it is absurd that they call regular appropriations bills crazy and evil when we used them for 200 years to fund government operations.
 
Alright Bubba, if you want to be foolish let's do this.

First, I said we were not given the whole thing, and proved it. Second of all, when I mentioned Schumer, it was only in relation to Reid saying he was going to explain what Durbin and Schumer had explained previously-all of this taking place before the "why would we do that" line.

Again, you are accusing me of something that I am not in any way saying and it is you who is looking like a fool.

Squirm, twist, wiggle.....Doesn't change what Reid said or when he said it.

That clown doesn't care about peoples health anymore than any other Dem that voted for Obamadon'tcare. It's all about their lust for power and the ability to control peoples lives. Reid just proved that in his remarks.
 
here is the video of Reid saying what he said directly from CNN.



The O.P. is correct, Harry Reid did say that...he also said something about 1100 people sitting home with their own problems (assumed he meant because of the shut down) and he compared them to a kid with cancer....WTF?

Has normality and common sense completely left some people that they are willing to defend what he said?
 
here is the video of Reid saying what he said directly from CNN.



The O.P. is correct, Harry Reid did say that...he also said something about 1100 people sitting home with their own problems (assumed he meant because of the shut down) and he compared them to a kid with cancer....WTF?

Has normality and common sense completely left some people that they are willing to defend what he said?


Nah, we are just seeing once again the overt double standard of liberal progressives, using Alinsky as their template.
 
Has normality and common sense completely left some people that they are willing to defend what he said?


Yeah, given the option of admitting that what Reid said was stupid they choose the least sane option of trying to argue that what he said was perfectly normal and appropriate.
 
Nah, we are just seeing once again the overt double standard of liberal progressives, using Alinsky as their template.

ABSOLUTELY 100% CORRECT.

I alluded to the hypocrisy byproduct of the Alinsky tactic by including Reid's subsequent tweet. After what his Party does routinely as a tactic, he actually had the balls to tweet ...
"Republicans ... have literally resorted to accusing me of not caring about kids with cancer. Shameful," - Harry Reid

I had to bail on this thread last night. It was incredible.
 
And as for YOU, Fiddy. I used to see you as having a degree of integrity & too much self respect to get sucked into defending the indefensible for partisan reasons.
I never took you for a troll but you really trolled it to the max last night.
You're a major disappointment.
You ain't no D.P.Moynahan.
Please recover before renaming yourself Head Of Fiddy.
 
I love that leftists will defend their own no matter what. Reid could be accused and found guilty of child molestation and the leftists and faux "centrists"would defend him.
 
Nah, we are just seeing once again the overt double standard of liberal progressives, using Alinsky as their template.

Even when caught on video saying something, deny it...your faithful followers will defend you to the end...just look how many lies on video we all have caught Obama in.
 
Yeah, given the option of admitting that what Reid said was stupid they choose the least sane option of trying to argue that what he said was perfectly normal and appropriate.

perfectly normal and appropriate for a Liberal maybe...not a sane and reasonable adult. But then again, our politicians dont act like sane and reasonable adults.
 
I love how the Teaterrorist and RepubliNazi's are crying about this didn't they demand in the sequester to cut funding for these children by 1.6 billion and get it. So who really wants to kill children now.
 
I love how the Teaterrorist and RepubliNazi's are crying about this didn't they demand in the sequester to cut funding for these children by 1.6 billion and get it. So who really wants to kill children now.

LOL..........................................

Obama pushed for the sequester. Fact. For all the wrong reasons but he did it.

Show me where the sequester cut funding for children. Fact is there was hardly any budgets that were cut so show me where funding to children was cut.
 
Back
Top Bottom