• 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!

2010 Midterm Results Discussion

Prof. Peabody said:
Raw story falls into the Blog catagory, this is the main stream media.
Click to expand...

They're not the source of the poll results, Peabody... Associate Press is. The link gives credit to the quotations provided.
 
Whovian said:
so, 4 in 10 adults think the new law did not go far enough to change the health care system, regardless of whether they support the law, oppose it or remain neutral. Meaning you don't know which of those three groups the 4 comes from.
Click to expand...

........Which doesn't matter because they feel it doesn't go far enough to change the health care system, which indicates disappointment with "appetizer" legislation when what you really want is a full-course restructuring.

Whovian said:
1 in 5 oppose the law because they think the federal government should not be involved in health care at all. That leaves the other 5, who oppose it and want it repealed. So, 6 in 10 either don't want goverment invovled and want it repealed or simply don't want it and want it repealed. Last time I checked, 6 was more than 4.
Click to expand...

You're attempting to define the ambiguity of the other 4 in 5, without knowing why they oppose. What we do know is that 4 out of 10 oppose because it doesn't go far enough, and that 1 in 5 think government should keep hands off... and 2 (the last time I checked) is greater than 1.
 
Last edited:
Jetboogieman said:
Context is everything.

Some people oppose it because it didn't go FAR ENOUGH.

I'm not American. So I can actually look at things objectively and not get caught up in your rediculous partisan hackery. Which you excel at by the way.
Click to expand...

That is spin, no one OPPOSED Obamacare because it didn't go far enough, they were disappointed but didn't vote against Obama for that reason. Notice that you ran from the actual election results. You are in denial.
 
Conservative said:
That is spin, no one OPPOSED Obamacare because it didn't go far enough, they were disappointed but didn't vote against Obama for that reason. Notice that you ran from the actual election results. You are in denial.
Click to expand...

Ran from the election results?

I'm well aware the Dems took a hammering. And rightfully so, they're as full of **** as Republicans are, as I've always said.

Sometimes it bothers me in certain regards, because there are many legitimate reasons to shaft the Dems and Obama if you really think about it, the problem is, that's not what Republicans run on.

You don't win elections by pointing out whats actually wrong and having constructive critisism, you win elections by painting Obama as Satan, which is the ONLY THING the Republicans have been doing for the last 2 years. That's pretty much it. They have no new ideas, they have no ideas at all I think, and although the Dems deserved a hammering for being a miserable excuse for a party, you just went ahead and replaced them with another pathetic excuse for a party.

Legitimate concerns about Obamas presidency have been drowned out by other bollocks that is inconsequential.

So in short, thanks for replacing one group of assholes, with another.
 
Conservative said:
That is spin, no one OPPOSED Obamacare because it didn't go far enough, they were disappointed but didn't vote against Obama for that reason. Notice that you ran from the actual election results. You are in denial.
Click to expand...

actually, it is you who proves himself clueless in the face of the facts against your argument
if Obama, while he had control of all houses of government, had instituted an expansion to medicare to all citizens (THE public option), that would have given the democrats huge political cover this election season

what this election was about was the same thing Bill Clinton's team understood:
it's the economy, stupid
Click to expand...
Obama's failure to implement an FDR-like program to offer low paying jobs in public works until the economy rebounded - that was the squandering of a mandate which led to this return of the house to the same party which broke our economy
the shrub bailed out wall street, Obama failed to bail out main street
 
Jetboogieman said:
Ran from the election results?

I'm well aware the Dems took a hammering. And rightfully so, they're as full of **** as Republicans are, as I've always said.

Sometimes it bothers me in certain regards, because there are many legitimate reasons to shaft the Dems and Obama if you really think about it, the problem is, that's not what Republicans run on.

You don't win elections by pointing out whats actually wrong and having constructive critisism, you win elections by painting Obama as Satan, which is the ONLY THING the Republicans have been doing for the last 2 years. That's pretty much it. They have no new ideas, they have no ideas at all I think, and although the Dems deserved a hammering for being a miserable excuse for a party, you just went ahead and replaced them with another pathetic excuse for a party.

Legitimate concerns about Obamas presidency have been drowned out by other bollocks that is inconsequential.

So in short, thanks for replacing one group of assholes, with another.
Click to expand...

The trouble is you and others are only hearing half the story from a biased partisan media. Read Erick Cantor's 22 page game plan, Read Paul Ryan's Roadmap. Have you seen any of those published in the media. Why not?
 
Conservative said:
Yes, like all liberal programs Medicare costs billions more than intended but since you don't apparently see the cost you ignore them.
Click to expand...

And does more than intended. Doing more ususally costs more. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
And does more than intended. Doing more ususally costs more. ;)
Click to expand...

So then what you are saying with 30 million more added to the roles that the Obamacare will cost more than it was projected? Thanks for finally admitting that thus no deficit reduction.
 
Conservative said:
So then what you are saying with 30 million more added to the roles that the Obamacare will cost more than it was projected? Thanks for finally admitting that thus no deficit reduction.
Click to expand...

If it does more than intended, it will cost more. No one has ever suggested otherwise. But instead of whining, if it does more, we should either draw back, or find a way to pay for it.
 
Boo Radley said:
If it does more than intended, it will cost more. No one has ever suggested otherwise. But instead of whining, if it does more, we should either draw back, or find a way to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Wrong, don't seem to remember previous posts as to how this is going to save money. It doesn't save money costing more.
 
Conservative said:
Wrong, don't seem to remember previous posts as to how this is going to save money. It doesn't save money costing more.
Click to expand...

Previous post from who? I said a unviersal payer would save money. Measured against what we're doing now. We don't have a universial payer.
 
Boo Radley said:
Previous post from who? I said a unviersal payer would save money. Measured against what we're doing now. We don't have a universial payer.
Click to expand...

And as I pointed out, accurately, Medicare hasn't saved the country any money and costs billions more than intended. Nothing the govt. does is effecient.
 
Boo Radley said:
In the long run it may. But it will likely require more work. What we do know is it costs a crap load now, before reform, for very little. if we got more and it cost more, that might make it worth it as cost is only part of the equation. But, I would like to see them work to reduce costs.
Click to expand...

Costs who a "crap load" Federal or state taxpayers?
 
Conservative said:
And as I pointed out, accurately, Medicare hasn't saved the country any money and costs billions more than intended. Nothing the govt. does is effecient.
Click to expand...

And done a hell of a lot more than intended. Try to get rid of it asn see how much support you get. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
And done a hell of a lot more than intended. Try to get rid of it asn see how much support you get. ;)
Click to expand...

That is the way govt. programs work, like a drug dealer, get people dependent and then take more control. For some reason there are never any consequences in your world after all that govt. spending.
 
Conservative said:
That is the way govt. programs work, like a drug dealer, get people dependent and then take more control. For some reason there are never any consequences in your world after all that govt. spending.
Click to expand...

Tell yourself whatever you must, but the program works, and people support the program. Instead of complaining that your paying more for more, you might work to balance what is done with how we pay for it.
 
Boo Radley said:
Tell yourself whatever you must, but the program works, and people support the program. Instead of complaining that your paying more for more, you might work to balance what is done with how we pay for it.
Click to expand...

Growing up I learned personal responsibility. I don't expect you to pay for my healthcare, why do you think it is my responsibility to pay for yours? I asked you a question which of course you ignored, who pays the cost of the uninsured, the Federal govt. or the state governments.
 
Conservative said:
Growing up I learned personal responsibility. I don't expect you to pay for my healthcare, why do you think it is my responsibility to pay for yours? I asked you a question which of course you ignored, who pays the cost of the uninsured, the Federal govt. or the state governments.
Click to expand...


Would you rather the uninsured just be put out on the streets?
 
Conservative said:
Growing up I learned personal responsibility. I don't expect you to pay for my healthcare, why do you think it is my responsibility to pay for yours? I asked you a question which of course you ignored, who pays the cost of the uninsured, the Federal govt. or the state governments.
Click to expand...
but it is obvious you have no clue about the civic obligation of a citizen
 
winston53660 said:
Would you rather the uninsured just be put out on the streets?
Click to expand...

How about answering the question that Boo refuses to answer? Who pays the cost of the uninsured, the Federal Govt. or the states?
 
justabubba said:
but it is obvious you have no clue about the civic obligation of a citizen
Click to expand...

What liberals do is look to the Federal Govt. to implement programs they deem important when the states refuse to do it. They certainly don't understand civic obligation thus always look to the Federal Govt. to overrule state issues but only when a liberal supports the issue that the majority in states approve it.
 
Why don't you just go look it up?
Google
If you have some grand point to make.
 
Conservative said:
What liberals do is look to the Federal Govt. to implement programs they deem important when the states refuse to do it. They certainly don't understand civic obligation thus always look to the Federal Govt. to overrule state issues but only when a liberal supports the issue that the majority in states approve it.
Click to expand...

close,
it should have read:
What citizens do is look to the Federal Govt. to implement programs they deem important
Click to expand...

but your ramblings confirm what was already known .... you have NO understanding of civic duty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom