Thread: Medicare Debate Test Case?

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

You should read your posts. You really should. Maybe get someone detacted and not a friend of yours to go over them. Just a suggestion.

and one day perhaps you will realize that we are not your students, and don't have to grant you any special authority to declare vaguely in a just-so manner what 'truth' is.

...but until that day, you will remain a weak debater .

Originally Posted by cpwill

and one day perhaps you will realize that we are not your students, and don't have to grant you any special authority to declare vaguely in a just-so manner what 'truth' is.

...but until that day, you will remain a weak debater .

I don't think you are (my students know better). But, poor sourcing is poor sourcing.

And ad-hominem is a fallacy.

Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Ryan’s favorables have risen from 36% in July to 50% now. Thirty-eight percent (38%) of unaffiliated voters are more likely to vote for Romney as a result of the Ryan pick versus 29% who are less likely to do so.



Democrats quickly seized on Ryan’s reputation as a budget hawk in the House of Representative and portrayed his Medicare reform proposal as a threat to seniors. But early state polling suggests that argument isn’t working. In fact, 54% of seniors in Florida fear President Obama’s national health care law more than Ryan’s Medicare proposal. The findings were similar in Wisconsin...

Originally Posted by cpwill

And ad-hominem is a fallacy.

One you use often.

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

One you use often.

And that makes your own acceptable? Eye for an eye sorta thing? He's not using an ad-hominem now, he simply wants a bit of HONEST debate with you. I read his article, and I like to consider myself to be fairly unbiased, but even still, in THIS case, I am biased. Personally, I don't LIKE the information presented in the OP. I DO think it's a tad silly, that now we have republicans crying foul over democrats wanting to cut medicare, lol. I have watched for years as republicans refuse to budge on military spending, while still smaller than medicare, far larger than the military budget of any other 2 nations in the world combined, heck, even 3. Personally, I think some good old fashioned insurance reform would removed the need to even HAVE medicare...but that's an entirely different debate.

Look, my point is, that while I'm not FOND of the information presented, I really having nothing to say against it. I hate to use the word irrefutable, because it is almost always found to be false, but in this case, from MY corner at least, it's sound. So therefor, I was actually going to post NOTHING in this thread. At least, not until I saw the back and forth between you two, and it made me mentally pull my hair out. You're issue is misplaced. You claim he is misrepresenting the story and the information, and that his source is faulty. Well, PROVE IT, or can it. Otherwise, I have to say, he's 100% correct about you. Either debate, or don't. And for the record, what you are doing is NOT debate.

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

One you use often.

really?


I know you are but what am I.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Boo Radley

CP, you use inaccurate sources and get mad when people point that out.

No, he gets understandably annoyed when people don't PROVE his inaccuracies. He has provided his link, he source, for his info. I made a claim, and then backed it up with his source for proof. You are now making a claim, that his source, and therefor, his proof, is not correct. So, provide a link with information counter to what his says.

Kind of like me linking a source that says Bush is Hilter and complaining when you point out it's a crappy source,

Bush isn't Hitler. Last I checked, Hitler died at the tail end of WW2. I can provide some source material for that, if you'd like.

or that moon is made of snow flakes and vergin hearts, and someone saying the source is inaccurate.

It isn't. It's mostly rock and dirt, more specifically, feldspar. I can provide some source info for that, as well, if you'd like.

When will you learn that accuracy matters?

When will you learn that claims must be backed with proof, and that the burden of proofs lies with the claimant?

Originally Posted by Kandahar

These efforts at "reform" involve reducing benefits to recipients and/or reducing the pool of eligible people. You can call it whatever euphemism you like, but I don't think a debate on Medicare is one that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are going to win.

What is inherently wrong about reducing benefits and reducing the pool of eligible people? If we are going to greatly expand the program to cover more people why can't we look at reducing some benefits so more people can be covered for essential medical costs and care? The pool is going to get a lot bigger so eligibilty is going to be kind of a crucial don't you think?

Originally Posted by cpwill

really?

Really, you are doing a pot to kettle kind of thing here. The point is you use inaccurate sources, and then complain when people call you on it. This is a valid point. Instead of addressing it, you went off. We can play that, as I don't mind. But you did not address the point, the valid point.