• 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!

Health care repeal will cost $230 billion

Last edited:
but wik hasn't published it yet

LOL!

Not sure why you get such please out of misrepresenting things. I guess that's the best you can do. But, either adress it accurately, or move on.
 
round and round makes one dizzy

is that why you don't recognize claire mccaskill when she's LINKED right in front of you

LOL!
 
round and round makes one dizzy

is that why you don't recognize claire mccaskill when she's LINKED right in front of you

LOL!

Because you miss the point (surprising isn't it). It doesn't matter who you quote. I don't need to tell that person. Quoting people is not equal to providing actual measurable evidence. It's a point you keep missing.
 
says the 60 second clicker who disparages politico and the dallas morning news while simultaneously pushing wik over the cbc

LOL!
 
says the 60 second clicker who disparages politico and the dallas morning news while simultaneously pushing wik over the cbc

LOL!

I have not at anytime disparaged the Dallas Morning News. I have noted you miss quoted them and did not prove the claim.
 
LOL!

it sure does to obama

he's all for the mandate

gee, i wonder what physician owned hospitals are sposed to do when they're BANNED from receiving medicare and medicaid reimbursements

Suppose all you want, but don't claim anyone has already closed when they haven't. It's called being accurate.
 
No, it does not matter.

LOL!

it sure does to obama

he's all for the mandate

gee, i wonder what physician owned hospitals are sposed to do when they're BANNED from receiving medicare and medicaid reimbursements
 
LOL!

it sure does to obama

he's all for the mandate

gee, i wonder what physician owned hospitals are sposed to do when they're BANNED from receiving medicare and medicaid reimbursements

Even if it matter to Obama, it would not matter to the facts of whether something closed or not. You keep missing the point.
 
oh, just the cbc, huh?

LOL!

For the comparison, which it didn't do, and Wiki did, yes I took wiki over the CBC. Until you're honest about the point, you will continue to be off based here.
 
Don't know enough about CBC to know if it is nonbaised.

and there ya go

the guy who doesn't know enough about the cbc to say whether or not the "npr of the crown" is or isn't biased STILL prefers a source anyone of us can edit

tells ya all ya need to know
 
and there ya go

the guy who doesn't know enough about the cbc to say whether or not the "npr of the crown" is or isn't biased STILL prefers a source anyone of us can edit

tells ya all ya need to know

Put it in context. And try again.
 
meanwhile, obamacare BANS medicare and medicaid reimbursements to doctor owned hospitals

which, whether they're delayed or halted, certainly can't be very beneficial to em
 
meanwhile, obamacare BANS medicare and medicaid reimbursements to doctor owned hospitals

which, whether they're delayed or halted, certainly can't be very beneficial to em

I'm sure you've already figured this out, but you're wasting your time with this character. He is insincere and dishonest. He disparages everyones sources but his own and won't accept any proof, no matter how reputable.

He recently tried to tell me that my sources were not credible because people he had talked on the street said otherwise. See how dishonest he is ??
 
I'm sure you've already figured this out, but you're wasting your time with this character. He is insincere and dishonest. He disparages everyones sources but his own and won't accept any proof, no matter how reputable.

He recently tried to tell me that my sources were not credible because people he had talked on the street said otherwise. See how dishonest he is ??

You might try accually addressing me, or the issue. Prof has it completely wrong, misrepresenting what was said, cutting up quotes to not show the context. You can join him if you like, but it would be just as dishonest.

And that is not what I told you. Didn't I suggest then I could point you to a reading instructor?
 
You might try accually addressing me, or the issue. Prof has it completely wrong, misrepresenting what was said, cutting up quotes to not show the context. You can join him if you like, but it would be just as dishonest.

And that is not what I told you. Didn't I suggest then I could point you to a reading instructor?

No, the Prof and I both have it right. But thanks for proving my original point.
 
No, the Prof and I both have it right. But thanks for proving my original point.

:coffeepap

No, you just can't really argue an issue, so you resort to this tactic, weak as it is.
 
:coffeepap

No, you just can't really argue an issue, so you resort to this tactic, weak as it is.

I posted this on the other thread as well as posted it yesterday, looks to me like you ignored it just like you ignore anything else that contradicts your opinions. Here is why the CBO numbers are wrong. Pay attention to the assumptions and tell me why you don't agree?

Review & Outlook: ObamaCare's Reality Deficit - WSJ.com
 
I posted this on the other thread as well as posted it yesterday, looks to me like you ignored it just like you ignore anything else that contradicts your opinions. Here is why the CBO numbers are wrong. Pay attention to the assumptions and tell me why you don't agree?

Review & Outlook: ObamaCare's Reality Deficit - WSJ.com

Is it emotionally comforting for you to believe that you are being ignored instead of facing the alternative that your were heard and utterly rejected as wrong?
 
Back
Top Bottom