• 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!

Stephanopoulos points out Merriam-Webster definition of taxes to president

Truth Detector;

First off, what part of my comments had anything “partisan” in them? Oh that’s right; NONE of them did.

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.

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?

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."

I am not sure if your are just intellectually incapable of comprehension or just selectively choosing to feign complete and utter ignorance.

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.
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:

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? :confused:

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.


See above.

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.
:spin:


Yada,yada,yada .Is that all you have, smear the messenger. How about proving him wrong instead of this BS your throwing out?
 
Last edited:
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.
 

Yes, that is the ONE and ONLY time Obama had to face someone on Fox, and he dodged him for months after promising to appear.

So how does that argue against my point at all? Obama gave one interview with a conservative network and about 462 with liberal networks. Conversely, the majority of republicans must suffer liberal networks and cant find such a safe haven. It's exactly as I described it.

I mean, I can almost see using a childish insult like "what planet do you live on" IF and only IF you defeated a bad argument...but what you've done is only confirm it.
 
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.


20710.jpg


What other visions do you see swami? :2wave:
 
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.

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 TD land is “healthcare reform” considered an agenda,

Only in “Doncland” is an agenda to implement single payer healthcare NOT 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.

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?


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."

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.


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.

Another lie postulated by someone who mistakes hyper partisan emotional hyperbole for substance.

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? :confused:

Yada,yada,yada .Is that all you have, smear the messenger. How about proving him wrong instead of this BS your throwing out?

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.
 
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.

I guess this question was what did it eh TD? (. How about proving him wrong instead of this BS your throwing out?) :rofl
 
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?
 
Please offer some substantiation for this, or this yet another one of your hyperpartisan premises that has no basis in reality?

Ask and you shall recieve:

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

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:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8"]YouTube - How Obama Got Elected... Interviews With Obama Voters[/ame]

Does that work for you?
 
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.
 
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.

He forgot to include [/sarcasm] at the end of the post. ;)
 
i believe that poll is fake.

If you had looked at the Zogby results link, at the bottom you would find this:

For methodology, contact: Fritz Wenzel, 315-624-0200 ext. 229 or 419-205-0287 or fritz@zogby.com.

Call him or write him and tell him you think the poll was a fake. :shock:
 
Zogby International has been tracking public opinion since 1984 in North America, Latin America, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe...

Zogby International

Do you really think an International polling organization would post fake poll results.... on their own web site?

John Zogby on this poll:

"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

Zogby International

Let's be honest... Obama was elected just like the winner of American Idol, not on his politics…. That is why his poll numbers are dropping like a rock, people are starting to see what he really is.
 
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?

Nope. He said that 90% of those who voted for Obama did for one of two reasons: (a) he's a minority, and (b) he's prettier than the other guy. None of the information you presented substantiated that ridiculous hyperpartisan hyperbole of a premise.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Funny, I always thought that I had a legal obligation to pay my taxes, and politicians are always mentioning that it's my duty to pay taxes.
 
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.

Speeding tickets are a tax.
 
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.

Obama never so much as sponsored a bill. He never ran a company, served in the military, governed a state, worked in a foreign relations post.....nothing.

He basically ran a library on the south side of Chicago, served two years as a Senator, most of which he spent campaigning for president.

He was elected because he was black and cooler than McCain.
 
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
 
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 not going to post any facts as usual. LOL
 
Oh so you are going to post any facts as usual. LOL

Do tell me what FACTS are required to argue that to be President one should at least have some qualifications/experience for the job? I am curious what facts you think one needs to state the OBVIOUS.

Are you now going to argue that one requires no qualifications to become leader of the most powerful country on the globe and that the only way you will believe it is if you have a link? You’re kidding me right?
:rofl

Carry on; as usual you offer nothing but nonsensical BS. :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom