• 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!

Obama's approval rating grows following memorable week

Thing is, the communities don't. TX has the highest rate of uninsured people in the country.

Problem is people like you read the headlines and by the rhetoric, there are 6 million uninsured people in TX much less than those in California but the reality is of those 6 million more than half are eligible for Medicaid but didn't sign up. More are able but choose not to participate in plans available or even company plans. Guess that reality escapes you
 
Problem is people like you read the headlines and by the rhetoric, there are 6 million uninsured people in TX much less than those in California but the reality is of those 6 million more than half are eligible for Medicaid but didn't sign up. More are able but choose not to participate in plans available or even company plans. Guess that reality escapes you

One thing we know for sure about your "statistics" is that we must not accept them at face value (see your false presentation of debt accumulated by presidents). Where'd you get this latest laugher?
While we're waiting for you, here's an actually accounting of % uninsured by state (2013 data):

Health Insurance Coverage of the Total Population | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

CA at 15%, TX at 20%. Neither one has anything to brag about but TX and NV tie for the worst out of all 50 states.
 
Last edited:
No, I used actual results, those are the numbers the President INHERITED but like all economically challenged liberals you believe budgets are actual spending and you hold Republicans to a different standard. Only in the liberal world is the President(Republican) responsible for the entire yearly debt when in office from Oct-January. It is interesting how results never matter and arrogance takes over. Liberalism is a failure, total and complete. Your passion for it says a lot about you

Even the right wing CATO institute believes Bush is responsible for much of the 2009 deficit, it is only the most radical rightwingers like you that defend Bush far beyond normal limits. Even still it takes real balls to ignore the massive drop in revenues from the economic collapse and just blindly claim that Obama somehow spent those extra trillions. Obama has cut the deficit in half while recovering us from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

200911_blog_mitchell2.jpg
 
Last edited:
One thing we know for sure about your "statistics" is that we must not accept them at face value (see your false presentation of debt accumulated by presidents). Where'd you get this latest laugher?
While we're waiting for you, here's an actually accounting of % uninsured by state (2013 data):

Health Insurance Coverage of the Total Population | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

CA at 15%, TX at 20%. Neither one has anything to brag about but TX and NV tie for the worst out of all 50 states.

As stated, I have posted the link to the debt by day, you ignored it and made up your own numbers. Now you post Kaiser numbers which really are meaningless. First 15% of the entitlement state of California creates more than a million more Californians uninsured but the real issue is you don't breakdown the numbers to see why they are so high. That is headline reading and is what people like you do. Name for me a successful Progressive country in the world today and define success? Yours seem to be on how much the people get FROM their govt. and not the opportunities to create personal wealth from that govt.
 
Obama has cut the deficit in half while recovering us from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Obama averages much higher deficits than Bush. Only a few hundred billion from 2009 can be attributed to Obama. Obama signed 9 of the 12 spending bills for 2009, but not the huge ones.
 
She's a bit, let's say, scrambled in her explanations of things. I sense that ineffable whiff of libertoonianism which dwells in the hinterlands of absurdity.

Great term - LIBERTOONIANISM - I am officially stealing that. :2wave:

All I want the person to do is offer an explanation as to how the idea of CONSENT has any relevance to the health care law.

Sadly, they would rather engage is silly tactics than engage in debate.
 
Post #328 will cure all your ills.

post 328 quotes me telling you I am NOT asking for a legal opinion but only your personal opinion as to what CONSENT has to do with the health care law.

post 328 offers NO explanation from you in any way shape or from telling us about why you introduced the idea of CONSENT into the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Even the right wing CATO institute believes Bush is responsible for much of the 2009 deficit, it is only the most radical rightwingers like you that defend Bush far beyond normal limits. Even still it takes real balls to ignore the massive drop in revenues from the economic collapse and just blindly claim that Obama somehow spent those extra trillions. Obama has cut the deficit in half while recovering us from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

200911_blog_mitchell2.jpg

There you go again, you don't inherit deficit you inherit debt. Further Obama did cut the deficits in half after creating record high deficits and they still today are at historically high numbers.

Can you explain to me how the financial crisis affected you and your family? If you didn't own a home you didn't suffer any paper loss. What was the misery index when Obama took office?

What I find from you is continued support for failure based upon your inability to accept liberalism being a failure. You buy what the left tells you and do no research to verify the rhetoric. Do you think tax cuts are an expense to the federal govt? Do you think the 842 billion dollar stimulus created jobs, verifiable numbers from non partisan sites? Show the chart on those numbers?

Stop letting liberalism make a fool out of you and stop making Gruber look brilliant.
 
post 328 quotes me telling you I am NOT asking for a legal opinion but only your personal opinion as to what CONSENT has to do with the health care law.

And then telling me it was a legal question. You got it, turbo.

All I want the person to do is offer an explanation as to how the idea of CONSENT has any relevance to the health care law.

Legally?
 
And then telling me it was a legal question. You got it, turbo.



Legally?

I never used the term LEGALLY or said it was a LEGAL QUESTION. That was your dishonest attempt to create a hidden-hole in which you thought you might be able to escape from the request to explain what YOU THOUGHT the idea of CONSENT had to do with a government health care program.

All I am asking you - all I have ever asked you to do - of to offer YOUR own explanation as to what your introduction of the word CONSENT has to do with the health care program.

Can you do so?
 
But you asked a legal question.

what the heck does CONSENT have to do with a national program which applies to the citizenry which has been passed by the peoples government and upheld by the judiciary?
 
But you asked a legal question.

You will know when I am asking a LEGAL QUESTION when
1- you are a legal professional,
2 - I approach you as a legal professional,
3- I inform you that I am asking for a LEGAL OPINION from you as a legal professional

I did NOT do that.

Until that happens, you are simply a person here who offered an opinion about CONSENT and I simply asked you about that.

Now are you ready to explain what you claim CONSENT has to do with health care?
 
Even the right wing CATO institute believes Bush is responsible for much of the 2009 deficit, it is only the most radical rightwingers like you that defend Bush far beyond normal limits. Even still it takes real balls to ignore the massive drop in revenues from the economic collapse and just blindly claim that Obama somehow spent those extra trillions. Obama has cut the deficit in half while recovering us from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

200911_blog_mitchell2.jpg

I find it quite telling that you go from thread to thread with the same support for Obama using the same charts that you don't understand Why so much passion for liberalism? Are you ever going to think with something other than your heart? You buy CBO numbers when they support your point of view and ignore them when they don't. Do you understand what CBO provides? Projections based upon assumptions. If the assumptions are wrong so are the projections. If they are given the assumption that tax cuts are an expense that is what they use. Most people understand that keeping more of what they earn isn't an expense to the govt. nor does it reduce revenue.

Do you understand that a budget is a guideline, not a spending bill? Because you budget for an item do you have to spend it? Obama took office in January 2009. He had a Bush spending plan that WASN'T approved by Congress. Bush operated on continuing resolutions based upon 2008 numbers thus couldn't have created the deficit you blame him for. Nor did the tax cuts which generated economic activity cause those deficits? Seems that liberals believe that without the tax cuts economic activity would have been the same but cannot prove that nor justify that sentiment based upon the components of GDP.

Then why is it you post data and run from the posts that refute it?
 
Are you asking a legal question?

nope - just asking you to explain your introduction of the idea of CONSENT in a discussion about the health care law.
 
nope - just asking you to explain your introduction of the idea of CONSENT in a discussion about the health care law.

Asking me about law?
 
Even the right wing CATO institute believes Bush is responsible for much of the 2009 deficit, it is only the most radical rightwingers like you that defend Bush far beyond normal limits.

Great work but we can bring all the facts to these people and it will not even make a dent in their concrete encased brains.
 
Then why is it you post data and run from the posts that refute it?

The idea that you think you've refuted anything is hilarious. All you've done is post one bogus set of stats after another, get called on it, and double down on the bogusness.
 
Asking me about law?

Simply asking YOU to explain YOUR comment about YOUR introduction of the term CONSENT into the discussionand what YOU think it has to do with the health care law.

Why are you so woefully impotent to do that?
 
You are not asking about a law (legal question)?
 
All I want the person to do is offer an explanation as to how the idea of CONSENT has any relevance to the health care law.

She's been evading answering my question about consent. This is what they do when they've cornered themselves.
 
No, I used actual results,

Actual results based on false parameters. I won't call it lying-by-statistics because I'm sure you just regurgitate these false stats that you feed on from the rightwing pukefunnel.
 
Last edited:
I responded to your question.
 
I responded to your question.

A fart would;d have been a response on the same level as your non-answer.

One can only be happy that you have exposed yourself with these tactics and you complete impotence to actually defend your statement and engage in actual debate.
 
Back
Top Bottom