• 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!

Facts Are Stubborn Things

Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

LaMidRighter said:
Care to state what's mis-leading that you disagree with, the opposition has pretty much been spot on from what I see. Give me one specific thing the opposition got wrong and we can discuss it, otherwise this looks like a defensive talking point.
Click to expand...

God, where do I start... it's been a hyper-partisan cluster**** of propaganda and misinformation from conservative groups and GOP reps and Senators.

If you have one that has attempted to engage in an honest pro/con debate offering workable modifications within the framework of the plan, I'd love to hear about him/her.

But, okay, here's one for starters:

CPR Administers Bad Facts, Again

The latest ad from the group Conservatives for Patients’ Rights claims that "new rules could hike your health insurance premiums 95 percent." That’s misleading.

The claim in the ad refers to only 5 percent of Americans who have health insurance – those who buy it on their own.

The claim comes from an analysis by a group that advocates for insurance carriers that sell policies in the individual market, among other areas.

That analysis also doesn’t take into consideration several elements of leading congressional legislation that other experts say will keep premium costs down – and in fact, lower premiums for some. Other independent studies show premium costs decreasing on average for Americans that currently have health coverage.

It’s not true that any of the health care overhaul measures that have been approved by committees in Congress would add "a trillion to the federal deficit," as the ad says. The Senate bill would add roughly $597 billion over 10 years, and the House bill that was approved by the Ways and Means Committee in mid-July would add a much smaller $239 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Click to expand...

How about I post others where everyone can see them and discuss?

Fair enough?
Click to expand...
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

apdst said:
Your side wrote the bill and still can't tell us what's in it. What's up with that?
Click to expand...

Well this here is a prime example of honesty/dishonesty in a debate. You are simply repeating something best fit for a blogosphere or talk radio. Do you really want to know what is in the bill? First, tell me which bill in which committee. Hah, see the problem there?

On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable to point out a provision or amendment in a specific bill that is in currently with a specific committee. There is no overall grand bill to speak of, nor can we even discuss this. If you take one singular issue, well that could be in one House committee, but not in another Senate committee.
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

sam_w said:
Well this here is a prime example of honesty/dishonesty in a debate. You are simply repeating something best fit for a blogosphere or talk radio. Do you really want to know what is in the bill? First, tell me which bill in which committee. Hah, see the problem there?

On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable to point out a provision or amendment in a specific bill that is in currently with a specific committee. There is no overall grand bill to speak of, nor can we even discuss this. If you take one singular issue, well that could be in one House committee, but not in another Senate committee.
Click to expand...
and yet, despite that, you support dear leader with eyes closed
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

I'm going to be charitable and call this person a lady when there is another more accurate but derogatory name for her type on the tip of my tongue. She's a G.D. liar in the first degree. Right off the bat she says you will be able to keep your present health care plan. Yes you can but in certain circumstances, and then only for a short time. Now I did't cobble together different parts of the bill. I listened to Der Fuhrer in Chief Obama in his own words and aI am continuously searching portions of it as questions arise. Obama wants a system that will ration health care, create massively long waiting periods before you can receive care, force everyone on to the plan at some point in time, allow ILLEGAL ALIENS THAT SHOULD BE DEPORTED TO RECEIVE FREE CARE, and like Oregon provide for Assisted suicide rather than prolong the life of people who the commission deems as useless eaters.
It's all there all you have to do is read the stinking thing and you'll see it for your self.
Good luck and keep the pressure on the Liberals to end this Reign of Terror on the best health care system on earth.
http://www.jeffhead.com/HC-HouseII.pdf
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

hazlnut said:
God, where do I start... it's been a hyper-partisan cluster**** of propaganda and misinformation from conservative groups and GOP reps and Senators.

If you have one that has attempted to engage in an honest pro/con debate offering workable modifications within the framework of the plan, I'd love to hear about him/her.

But, okay, here's one for starters:

CPR Administers Bad Facts, Again



How about I post others where everyone can see them and discuss?

Fair enough?
Click to expand...
Go for it, I don't do generalized debate.
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

sam_w said:
Well this here is a prime example of honesty/dishonesty in a debate. You are simply repeating something best fit for a blogosphere or talk radio. Do you really want to know what is in the bill? First, tell me which bill in which committee. Hah, see the problem there?

On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable to point out a provision or amendment in a specific bill that is in currently with a specific committee. There is no overall grand bill to speak of, nor can we even discuss this. If you take one singular issue, well that could be in one House committee, but not in another Senate committee.
Click to expand...


See? You don't even have a clue what's going on with it. That doesn't bother you...even a little? Or, since PBO said it's good, you're cool with it?
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

Hazelnut said:
God, where do I start... it's been a hyper-partisan cluster**** of propaganda and misinformation from conservative groups and GOP reps and Senators.

If you have one that has attempted to engage in an honest pro/con debate offering workable modifications within the framework of the plan, I'd love to hear about him/her.

But, okay, here's one for starters:

CPR Administers Bad Facts, Again



How about I post others where everyone can see them and discuss?

Fair enough?
Click to expand...


What, "experts", did FC.org check with? Seems they left out their reference data. However, if the Dems tax healthcare, then yes, your healthcare is going to go up.


*I got the right quote, but it was attributed to the wrong poster. My bad, Tee.*
 
Last edited:
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

LaMidRighter said:
Stop trying to claim some kind of high ground here, I have seen you post the same irrelevant data that the UHC side has been cherry picking for years, the stuff that makes the U.S. system look worse at face value until it is explained in context, your "facts" are not as solid as you think.

Which facts do you want honestly answered? You're making the blank assertion here, back it up. Check the entire site, it's all over these forums, I myself have addressed the history of expense in the U.S. in detail.
Click to expand...

Well why the hell was nothing ever addressed then? Sorry, but I posted numerous arguments using independent and NGO sources, never once were any replied to specifically.

So what exactly is cherry picked, please do tell me?
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

apdst said:
There is no such thing when talking about political policies.
Click to expand...

Libel/Slander or an interest in what kind of misinformation is being spread by the opposition?
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

"Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."


Hmmm.....looks like the White House is demanding that 300,000,000 Americans e-mail them a copy of the health care take-over scam the White House itself is proposing.

Don't they have a copy of their own plan?
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

Morality Games said:
Libel/Slander or an interest in what kind of misinformation is being spread by the opposition?
Click to expand...

That's right. PBO can't sue someone for slander, if they put out incorrect information about a piece of legislation. If that were the case, there wouldn't be any Dems in Congress. :rofl
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
"Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."


Hmmm.....looks like the White House is demanding that 300,000,000 Americans e-mail them a copy of the health care take-over scam the White House itself is proposing.

Don't they have a copy of their own plan?
Click to expand...

I think all 300 million of us should do that very thing.
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

What I see that as doing is providing the Messiah cover for the inevitable crash of his version of Hillary-care. When it goes down in flames, His Holiness will drone about the bazillion different "lies" about His failed plan and blame it on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, except he'll call it something else, since his Secretary of States holds the copyright on the VRWC.
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What I see that as doing is providing the Messiah cover for the inevitable crash of his version of Hillary-care. When it goes down in flames, His Holiness will drone about the bazillion different "lies" about His failed plan and blame it on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, except he'll call it something else, since his Secretary of States holds the copyright on the VRWC.
Click to expand...

Aww, yeah, you know that's coming. He sure as hell isn't going to take responsibility for it.
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

apdst said:
Aww, yeah, you know that's coming. He sure as hell isn't going to take responsibility for it.
Click to expand...
Bush's fault!!!
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

sam_w said:
Well why the hell was nothing ever addressed then? Sorry, but I posted numerous arguments using independent and NGO sources, never once were any replied to specifically.

So what exactly is cherry picked, please do tell me?
Click to expand...
Look all over this site, it's been well addressed.
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

Coronado said:
Bush's fault!!!
Click to expand...

Of course!

When PBO's 80--he'll live that long because he's not on the public option--he'll be rocking back and forth slobbering on himself moaning, "It's Bush's fault, it's Bush's fault...".
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

hazlnut said:
But will you respond to the one example I did post in this thread??
Click to expand...
Took a look at it, mostly irrelevant. First off, 95% increases are quite possible if the risk pool dissappears, of course, political "watchdog" groups would miss that, since they aren't involved in actually providing any aspect of healthcare, secondly I don't remember which "watchdog" you provided, but recognize them as a left leaning label, so, sorry, that combination automatically discredits anything they have to say. Bring data, not punditry.
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

hazlnut said:
But will you respond to the one example I did post in this thread??
Click to expand...
Heh, looked at it again and am even less impressed. They don't cite any of their numbers, don't have any credible research methodology, and basically have the, "because we say so" presentation tactic throughout the piece. That particular article is a useless hack piece.
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

LaMidRighter said:
Took a look at it, mostly irrelevant. First off, 95% increases are quite possible if the risk pool dissappears, of course, political "watchdog" groups would miss that, since they aren't involved in actually providing any aspect of healthcare, secondly I don't remember which "watchdog" you provided, but recognize them as a left leaning label, so, sorry, that combination automatically discredits anything they have to say. Bring data, not punditry.
Click to expand...

Nice try--you really didn't bother to read it.

I know facts can be stubborn things, but Factcheck.org was started by a conservative couple that realized the power of the internet when it comes to cutting through the punditry.

"recognized" them as left leaning --LOL, that's rich! Do you recognize FNC as fair and balanced, too.

I gave you facts, they didn't fit your views or position so you dismiss them as biased with some convoluted explanation.

You wanted serious example of the conservative propaganda overkill, I gave you one, if you're not even going to read, don't waste my time.
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

hazlnut said:
Nice try--you really didn't bother to read it.
Click to expand...
Yes, I in fact did read it and it said absolutely nothing to debunk the claims that single payor is a bad thing. All they did was accuse their opposition of distorting fact, and did not provide any solid ones themselves.

I know facts can be stubborn things, but Factcheck.org was started by a conservative couple that realized the power of the internet when it comes to cutting through the punditry.
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but the article lacked crucial data that I see daily as an insurance agent, they did not provide any kind of factual data and were mostly shilling for the UHC crowd, there were no valid statements in that article.

"recognized" them as left leaning --LOL, that's rich! Do you recognize FNC as fair and balanced, too.
Click to expand...
FNC is center right, and statistically rates lower in bias studies than other organizations. That validates your stated source how?

I gave you facts, they didn't fit your views or position so you dismiss them as biased with some convoluted explanation.
Click to expand...
No, you gave an opinion piece, and one lacking in critical thinking or relevant information, that you keep stating it as fact changes nothing.

You wanted serious example of the conservative propaganda overkill, I gave you one, if you're not even going to read, don't waste my time.
Click to expand...
Yes, I wanted a serious example, and am still waiting, bring something worth my time.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

LaMidRighter said:
FNC is center right, and statistically rates lower in bias studies than other organizations. That validates your stated source how?
Click to expand...

Please do back this up, I got to see this source. This being the channel that had viewers STILL believing WMDs were found in Iraq after David Kay made his report, after the President admitted there would be no WMDs found.
 
Re: Turn in your co-workers @whitehouse.gov

sam_w said:
Please do back this up, I got to see this source. This being the channel that had viewers STILL believing WMDs were found in Iraq after David Kay made his report, after the President admitted there would be no WMDs found.
Click to expand...
Here you go: Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom Oh, and um, UCLA is not exactly a conservative institution of learning. Or Harvard, their study found Fox to be net-neutral: Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!) | The Dead Fish Wrapper Watch There were others, but I think you get the point.

As for WMDs:Lawmakers Say WMDs Were Found In Iraq - THINK MTV The weapons were old, but still there. Everyone knows that, so don't go acting like Fox lied about that, cause that was exactly what they reported.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom