• 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!

Mark Critz Defeats Tim Burns in Pennsylvania Special Election for Murtha's Seat

Redress said:
The first article mentions one actual issue, and he Crist agreed with Obama on it.
Click to expand...

Candidates seeking Murtha seat shun President Obama?s policies - TheHill.com

Both candidates seeking to replace the late Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) are running against President Barack Obama’s top domestic priorities.

[Critz] has said he would have voted against the healthcare reform and climate change bills
Click to expand...

Redress said:
The second one has him saying "he opposed certain aspects of the health care legislation, but would not support its repeal".
Click to expand...

Critz ad: 'I opposed the health care bill' - Josh Kraushaar - POLITICO.com

Democrat Mark Critz, running to succeed the late Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), is branding himself as an opponent of health care legislation in his latest ad – a sign that the legislation is a tough sell even in working-class blue-collar Democratic confines.

Responding to an NRCC advertisement accusing him of backing health care reform, Critz says: “That ad’s not true. I opposed the health care bill, and I’m pro-life and pro-gun. That’s not liberal.”
Click to expand...
 
The Prof said:
Candidates seeking Murtha seat shun President Obama?s policies - TheHill.com





Critz ad: 'I opposed the health care bill' - Josh Kraushaar - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...

Is repeating the links supposed to do something?

he has said he would have voted against the healthcare reform and climate change bills
Click to expand...

But...

Critz didn’t take a public position on the health care legislation during the Democratic nomination process, and declined to answer a survey from The Hill newspaper in March whether he would support the bill.
Critz’s campaign spokesman told POLITICO last week that he opposed certain aspects of the health care legislation, but would not support its repeal.
Click to expand...
 
See Texmaster, alls you had to do was go back and read this thread to see how I said the healthcare bill was constitutional. Stop atttempting to use personal attacks to hide the fact that you don't even read the thread you are responding to.
 
he didn't say it in MARCH, he said it in MAY!

LOL!

microscope, anyone?
 
his campaign spokesmen told politico...

LOL!

but his RADIO AD said: "I OPPOSED THE HEALTH CARE BILL"

unbelievable
 
can you get any smaller?
 
The Prof said:
his campaign spokesmen told politico...

LOL!

but his RADIO AD said: "I OPPOSED THE HEALTH CARE BILL"

unbelievable
Click to expand...

Almost all liberals opposed certain aspects of the health care bill. He has also said he supported part of it, and would not support repealing it. Hrmmm......
 
TheNextEra said:
No, you'll just send in someone else's information and pass it off as your own.
Click to expand...

you are rather cowardly, several people on this board know who I am

you afraid your moronic claims about me will cost you some jack? Or are you just mad that deep down you realize I really am far better educated on matters having to do with constitutional law?
 
TurtleDude said:
you are rather cowardly, several people on this board know who I am

you afraid your moronic claims about me will cost you some jack? Or are you just mad that deep down you realize I really am far better educated on matters having to do with constitutional law?
Click to expand...

He isn't mad, he's just doubtful which he should be, besides, not many people have $10,000 to throw away.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
He isn't mad, he's just doubtful which he should be, besides, not many people have $10,000 to throw away.
Click to expand...

in my case it would be his 10,000 he is throwing away. I never make a wager I know I might lose just as I never ask a question that I do not already know the answer to. He's a clown and he lost. Nothing is dumber than claiming you can disprove what someone says about themselves unless you know who they are. The only time you can do that is if someone were to say something No one could have done--for example if somene said they ran a mile in a track meet in 3 minutes flat or high jumped 10 feet or beat say Roger Federer in a Wimbledon final (in the year he won it)

If you told me you were a Rhodes Scholar who graduated first in your class at MIT and had an IQ of 190 I might doubt it bu since I am sure there have been Rhodes scholars from MIT I could not prove you a liar without far more information
 
TurtleDude said:
in my case it would be his 10,000 he is throwing away. I never make a wager I know I might lose just as I never ask a question that I do not already know the answer to. He's a clown and he lost. Nothing is dumber than claiming you can disprove what someone says about themselves unless you know who they are. The only time you can do that is if someone were to say something No one could have done--for example if somene said they ran a mile in a track meet in 3 minutes flat or high jumped 10 feet or beat say Roger Federer in a Wimbledon final (in the year he won it)

If you told me you were a Rhodes Scholar who graduated first in your class at MIT and had an IQ of 190 I might doubt it bu since I am sure there have been Rhodes scholars from MIT I could not prove you a liar without far more information
Click to expand...

I have lost nothing, you claim you have lectured at Law schools, well prove it. It is not my job to prove your claims, it is yours. So since you call me a coward, let's see you post your name so we can verify your claims. Who's the real coward? You, because you will be proven a fraud and liar.
 
TheNextEra said:
I have lost nothing, you claim you have lectured at Law schools, well prove it. It is not my job to prove your claims, it is yours. So since you call me a coward, let's see you post your name so we can verify your claims. Who's the real coward? You, because you will be proven a fraud and liar.
Click to expand...


Yawn

your obsession is duly noted

put up the gold or close your hole:mrgreen:
 
TurtleDude said:
Yawn

your obsession is duly noted

put up the gold or close your hole:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Why would I put money to people I don't trust to not lie?

Seriously you claim to have lectured at law schools and expect someone to send $10,000 to someone they don't trust? Gimme a break.

And your cowardice is noted as well as your fraud and lying.
 
Turtledood, tne, how about make the wager the balance of the donations needed that goes to the forum? ;)
 
I am sorry and don't mean to insult any of the lefties or righties but partisan bickering is exactly what the corrupt politicians want you to do while they butt **** your brains out.

This post does not apply to the Good Reverend.:roll:
 
TheNextEra said:
Why would I put money to people I don't trust to not lie?

Seriously you claim to have lectured at law schools and expect someone to send $10,000 to someone they don't trust? Gimme a break.

And your cowardice is noted as well as your fraud and lying.
Click to expand...

you know you would lose so you spew this nonsense. I already told you people on this forum know me personally. And anyone who understands an IPA knows you are blowing smoke out of your six
 
pro-bipartisan said:
Yes it is true... just check the deptarment of labor and statistics.
Click to expand...


So your 300K supposed jobs created is supposed to outweigh this?:


WASHINGTON – The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week by the largest amount in three months. The surge is evidence of how volatile the job market remains, even as the economy grows.

Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the first increase in five weeks and the biggest jump since a gain of 40,000 in February.

The total was the highest since new claims reached 480,000 on April 10. It also pushed the average for the last four weeks to 453,500.


Jobless claims rise by largest amount in 3 months - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...


Hmmmm....Let's see here 453K minus 300k leaves a 153K net job loss. How's that a positive?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
So your 300K supposed jobs created is supposed to outweigh this?:





Hmmmm....Let's see here 453K minus 300k leaves a 153K net job loss. How's that a positive?


j-mac
Click to expand...


Liberal math?
 
pro-bipartisan said:
I'm not irgnoring the 10th amendment since that only applies to reserved powers. If it is an enumerated power then the federal government has control.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. The 10th Amendment is specific to restricting the powers of the federal government and forcing health care on everyone would be a direct violation of that Amendment.
 
pro-bipartisan said:
See Texmaster, alls you had to do was go back and read this thread to see how I said the healthcare bill was constitutional. Stop atttempting to use personal attacks to hide the fact that you don't even read the thread you are responding to.
Click to expand...

LOL You really do love repeating the same false claim over and over again don't you?

You ignored the 10th Amendment restricting the power of the federal government and you bastardized the Constitution claiming your own personal definition of "general welfare" is valid and even after I explained your error you didn't have the courage to address the argument.

You not only lost, you lost big.

Next time you demand answers from someone, do the courtesy of addressing their actual argument not pretending to point to an earlier point you claim invalidates it which I proved was laughably wrong.
 
texmaster said:
Wrong again. The 10th Amendment is specific to restricting the powers of the federal government and forcing health care on everyone would be a direct violation of that Amendment.
Click to expand...

There are two views as to the interpretation on that, but my take is the literal all powers not given to the Federal government belong to the states. In that regard, I agree with you that the states should control their own health care. On the other hand, Social Security, Medicare, etc., would also be unconstitutional with that line of thinking. Honestly? I am not sure which side of the fence I am on regarding some Federal programs, although I am vehemently against Obamacare.
 
danarhea said:
There are two views as to the interpretation on that, but my take is the literal all powers not given to the Federal government belong to the states. In that regard, I agree with you that the states should control their own health care. On the other hand, Social Security, Medicare, etc., would also be unconstitutional with that line of thinking. Honestly? I am not sure which side of the fence I am on regarding some Federal programs, although I am vehemently against Obamacare.
Click to expand...

Thats why this is so complicated an issue. Both sides believe they are right.

The argument for social security was that it is a tax. Health care is a required purchase of service and not exclusively from the government thus separating the two instances.
 
My belief is that in order to understand and pull out of the weeds on issues that the Federal Government must, or must not do, you first have to understand that the progressive reading of the commerce clause in today's terms is an unconstitutional one to begin with.


j-mac
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom