• 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!

Florida Blue cutting 300K policies

j-mac said:
Yeah? So tell me how you get around Roberts changing the law, to make his ruling work? Oh, and btw, attacking the messenger instead of making a logical, intellectual argument for your case is a fallacy, and immediate loss of your point in debate. But you know that.
Click to expand...

That's someone's spouting that say he changed the law. It is not accepted "FACT" that the law was changed.

And j, a messenger that has a history of being wrong should not be listened to. There's a reason we didn't listen to the boy who cried wolf. Too many times there was no wolf. You can't pull out any idiot and say don't attack the messenger. They are not created equal. Accuracy matters. We can find someone to say anything, but what's important is that someone says something that is actually true.
 
Boo Radley said:
That's someone's spouting that say he changed the law. It is not accepted "FACT" that the law was changed.

And j, a messenger that has a history of being wrong should not be listened to. There's a reason we didn't listen to the boy who cried wolf. Too many times there was no wolf. You can't pull out any idiot and say don't attack the messenger. They are not created equal. Accuracy matters. We can find someone to say anything, but what's important is that someone says something that is actually true.
Click to expand...


:roll: I am not playing this game with you, it's boring...."Accuracy" to you is only that in which you agree with, so have fun with that.
 
j-mac said:
:roll: I am not playing this game with you, it's boring...."Accuracy" to you is only that in which you agree with, so have fun with that.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Many people link very good sources. But the American Spectator is no better than Moveon.org. At least use the WSJ, as they have some standards. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it isn't. Many people link very good sources. But the American Spectator is no better than Moveon.org. At least use the WSJ, as they have some standards. ;)
Click to expand...


You've got a lot of nerve....

"The American Spectator is a conservative U.S. monthly magazine covering news and politics, edited by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. and published by the non-profit American Spectator Foundation. From its founding in 1967 until the late 1980s, the small-circulation magazine featured the writings of authors such as Thomas Sowell, Tom Wolfe, P.J. O'Rourke, George F. Will, Malcolm Gladwell, Patrick J. Buchanan, and Malcolm Muggeridge, although today the magazine is best known for its reports in the 1990s on Bill Clinton and its "Arkansas Project", funded by businessman Richard Mellon Scaife and the Bradley Foundation.[1]"

The American Spectator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though it is a conservative based magazine so I can see why you think you have to attack it....Just not enough room in the Boo world for opinion other than the ones Boo agrees with.
 
j-mac said:
You've got a lot of nerve....

"The American Spectator is a conservative U.S. monthly magazine covering news and politics, edited by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. and published by the non-profit American Spectator Foundation. From its founding in 1967 until the late 1980s, the small-circulation magazine featured the writings of authors such as Thomas Sowell, Tom Wolfe, P.J. O'Rourke, George F. Will, Malcolm Gladwell, Patrick J. Buchanan, and Malcolm Muggeridge, although today the magazine is best known for its reports in the 1990s on Bill Clinton and its "Arkansas Project", funded by businessman Richard Mellon Scaife and the Bradley Foundation.[1]"

The American Spectator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though it is a conservative based magazine so I can see why you think you have to attack it....Just not enough room in the Boo world for opinion other than the ones Boo agrees with.
Click to expand...

No. Accuracy. That's the issue.
 
Boo Radley said:
No. Accuracy. That's the issue.
Click to expand...

And who determines the "accuracy" of an opinion? See, you don't think it is accurate, I do. :shrug:

I guess my answer to your charge of it not being accurate is, That's your opinion.
 
j-mac said:
And who determines the "accuracy" of an opinion? See, you don't think it is accurate, I do. :shrug:

I guess my answer to your charge of it not being accurate is, That's your opinion.
Click to expand...

Facts are not debatable. When your source, or moveon, are lose with the facts, they are considered inaccurate. You're entitled to an opinion, but not separate facts.
 
Boo Radley said:
Facts are not debatable. When your source, or moveon, are lose with the facts, they are considered inaccurate. You're entitled to an opinion, but not separate facts.
Click to expand...

Ok, what "facts" does the article have wrong?
 
j-mac said:
Ok, what "facts" does the article have wrong?
Click to expand...

Well, while I love the truncoat John Roberts hyperbole, it is not fact that he rewrote anything. Presenting it as a fact, as the article does, is factually challenged. It is really nothing more than a rant. Not fact based.
 
Boo Radley said:
Well, while I love the truncoat John Roberts hyperbole, it is not fact that he rewrote anything. Presenting it as a fact, as the article does, is factually challenged. It is really nothing more than a rant. Not fact based.
Click to expand...

Oh for Christ sake! You do understand turning a phrase don't you?
 
j-mac said:
Oh for Christ sake! You do understand turning a phrase don't you?
Click to expand...

Again J, turning a phrase is find it it hints at something factual and honest. That was neither.
 
j-mac said:
You tell me....You took us down this road.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. You used wild eyed opinion as if it were fact. I told you the turn of phrase was not correct factually.
 
Boo Radley said:
No, I didn't. You used wild eyed opinion as if it were fact. I told you the turn of phrase was not correct factually.
Click to expand...

Clearly you can't hold normal conversation....Have a nice day Joe. :2wave:
 
j-mac said:
Clearly you can't hold normal conversation....Have a nice day Joe. :2wave:
Click to expand...

I do often j. All you have to do is actually address the rebuttal. It's not hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom