MediCare vs. Public Option?

What happens when a pundit states an opinion that was already independently deduced by another person? Are they automatically "mouthpieces" for that pundit?



That may be, but you don't know how those people came to formulate those opinions...

1. Yes, that's my opinion at least
That's just foolish... The person independently deduces something and you automatically dismiss it because some pundit agrees with the person?

IMHO, that is just rediculous and pretty damn partisan...

how is it partisan?

and i mean that taking what someone says without research is what makes a mouth piece

let's not call names
 
1. Yes, that's my opinion at least
That's just foolish... The person independently deduces something and you automatically dismiss it because some pundit agrees with the person?

IMHO, that is just rediculous and pretty damn partisan...

how is it partisan?

and i mean that taking what someone says without research is what makes a mouth piece

let's not call names

Then you didn't read what I said...

I specifially asked you "What happens when a pundit states an opinion that was already independently deduced by another person? Are they automatically "mouthpieces" for that pundit?"...

When your answer was "Yes, that's my opinion at least", I pointed out that as foolish and partisan... How could it not be? You basically said that someone who does independent research and comes to a conclusion is a "mouthpeice" if that conclusion agrees with something said by a pundit... You dismissed indipendently drawn conclusions...

Please, partisan is hardly a "name"...
 
I heard Mitch McConnell on CNN this morning raving about how Obama is going to destroy MediCare and how his mother depends on MediCare and the benefits that this government run health plan provides. Yet, on the other hand, he is completely against a government OPTION for healthcare for others who cannot afford insurance. Can someone tell me what the difference is?

how many times do you have to be told? seniors have paid into the system for years for the the benefit of being on medicare, it is an automatic enrollment, the people obama wants to put on the public option more than likely have never paid a dime of federal income tax. that's the difference.
 
I heard Mitch McConnell on CNN this morning raving about how Obama is going to destroy MediCare and how his mother depends on MediCare and the benefits that this government run health plan provides. Yet, on the other hand, he is completely against a government OPTION for healthcare for others who cannot afford insurance. Can someone tell me what the difference is?

how many times do you have to be told? seniors have paid into the system for years for the the benefit of being on medicare, it is an automatic enrollment, the people obama wants to put on the public option more than likely have never paid a dime of federal income tax. that's the difference.

Which "people" are you referring to? IF you have held a job, and been paid, (unless under the table with cash), you have paid income tax and the employer has paid payroll tax?
 
I heard Mitch McConnell on CNN this morning raving about how Obama is going to destroy MediCare and how his mother depends on MediCare and the benefits that this government run health plan provides. Yet, on the other hand, he is completely against a government OPTION for healthcare for others who cannot afford insurance. Can someone tell me what the difference is?

how many times do you have to be told? seniors have paid into the system for years for the the benefit of being on medicare, it is an automatic enrollment, the people obama wants to put on the public option more than likely have never paid a dime of federal income tax. that's the difference.

Which "people" are you referring to? IF you have held a job, and been paid, (unless under the table with cash), you have paid income tax and the employer has paid payroll tax?





and then gotten it all back and then some. how is that paying? not to mention the illegals who work under the table.
 
how many times do you have to be told? seniors have paid into the system for years for the the benefit of being on medicare, it is an automatic enrollment, the people obama wants to put on the public option more than likely have never paid a dime of federal income tax. that's the difference.

Which "people" are you referring to? IF you have held a job, and been paid, (unless under the table with cash), you have paid income tax and the employer has paid payroll tax?





and then gotten it all back and then some. how is that paying? not to mention the illegals who work under the table.

So, is it your informed opinion that the ONLY people who will benefit from healthcare reform are those too poor (whom we want to insure) and illegal aliens being paid under the table?
 
Which "people" are you referring to? IF you have held a job, and been paid, (unless under the table with cash), you have paid income tax and the employer has paid payroll tax?





and then gotten it all back and then some. how is that paying? not to mention the illegals who work under the table.

So, is it your informed opinion that the ONLY people who will benefit from healthcare reform are those too poor (whom we want to insure) and illegal aliens being paid under the table?

did you or did you not ask us what the difference was? We told you. Dont't like it? Can't help ya. cut 500 billion from medicare who will suffer? add illegals to the plan who will gain. It's just that simple dufus.
 
and then gotten it all back and then some. how is that paying? not to mention the illegals who work under the table.

So, is it your informed opinion that the ONLY people who will benefit from healthcare reform are those too poor (whom we want to insure) and illegal aliens being paid under the table?

did you or did you not ask us what the difference was? We told you. Dont't like it? Can't help ya. cut 500 billion from medicare who will suffer? add illegals to the plan who will gain. It's just that simple dufus.

So, had McConnell been completely honest in the interview, he would have stated that the reason he is against a public option for healthcare is that he is afriad that the only people who would benefit are poor American citizens and illegal aliens? Are you serious? Really?
 
That's just foolish... The person independently deduces something and you automatically dismiss it because some pundit agrees with the person?

IMHO, that is just rediculous and pretty damn partisan...

how is it partisan?

and i mean that taking what someone says without research is what makes a mouth piece

let's not call names

Then you didn't read what I said...

I specifially asked you "What happens when a pundit states an opinion that was already independently deduced by another person? Are they automatically "mouthpieces" for that pundit?"...

When your answer was "Yes, that's my opinion at least", I pointed out that as foolish and partisan... How could it not be? You basically said that someone who does independent research and comes to a conclusion is a "mouthpeice" if that conclusion agrees with something said by a pundit... You dismissed indipendently drawn conclusions...

Please, partisan is hardly a "name"...

sorry, i got mixed up. ok with what you actually said i will say that if it matches a pundit after research than that gives validity to the person researching
 
how is it partisan?

and i mean that taking what someone says without research is what makes a mouth piece

let's not call names

Then you didn't read what I said...

I specifially asked you "What happens when a pundit states an opinion that was already independently deduced by another person? Are they automatically "mouthpieces" for that pundit?"...

When your answer was "Yes, that's my opinion at least", I pointed out that as foolish and partisan... How could it not be? You basically said that someone who does independent research and comes to a conclusion is a "mouthpeice" if that conclusion agrees with something said by a pundit... You dismissed indipendently drawn conclusions...

Please, partisan is hardly a "name"...

sorry, i got mixed up. ok with what you actually said i will say that if it matches a pundit after research than that gives validity to the person researching

Thanks... It also gives validity to the pundit (in the eyes of the "researcher"), which might explain why you are hearing Beck and Limbaugh quoted...
 
So, is it your informed opinion that the ONLY people who will benefit from healthcare reform are those too poor (whom we want to insure) and illegal aliens being paid under the table?

did you or did you not ask us what the difference was? We told you. Dont't like it? Can't help ya. cut 500 billion from medicare who will suffer? add illegals to the plan who will gain. It's just that simple dufus.

So, had McConnell been completely honest in the interview, he would have stated that the reason he is against a public option for healthcare is that he is afriad that the only people who would benefit are poor American citizens and illegal aliens? Are you serious? Really?

can't speak for him.
 
Then you didn't read what I said...

I specifially asked you "What happens when a pundit states an opinion that was already independently deduced by another person? Are they automatically "mouthpieces" for that pundit?"...

When your answer was "Yes, that's my opinion at least", I pointed out that as foolish and partisan... How could it not be? You basically said that someone who does independent research and comes to a conclusion is a "mouthpeice" if that conclusion agrees with something said by a pundit... You dismissed indipendently drawn conclusions...

Please, partisan is hardly a "name"...

sorry, i got mixed up. ok with what you actually said i will say that if it matches a pundit after research than that gives validity to the person researching

Thanks... It also gives validity to the pundit (in the eyes of the "researcher"), which might explain why you are hearing Beck and Limbaugh quoted...

i gothcha. my beef is those who take it blindly and can't back up what they spew.
 
sorry, i got mixed up. ok with what you actually said i will say that if it matches a pundit after research than that gives validity to the person researching

Thanks... It also gives validity to the pundit (in the eyes of the "researcher"), which might explain why you are hearing Beck and Limbaugh quoted...

i gothcha. my beef is those who take it blindly and can't back up what they spew.

Those types are actually easy to spot for a couple of reasons...

Their MO (at least here, but you'll see it elsewhere) is to read a partisan site, cut and paste some faux outrage topic here, with not muvch more than a broad-brush generalization comment against the opposition...

Additionally, their posting habits expose their bias by talking in generalizations and when pressed for backup, often resort to linking to partisan sites or blogs...

I've been posting on political message boards for many years and have seen all kinds.... It's easier to spot them with experience... Personally, I have no patience with these types and will call them on it often...
 
Last edited:
Thanks... It also gives validity to the pundit (in the eyes of the "researcher"), which might explain why you are hearing Beck and Limbaugh quoted...

i gothcha. my beef is those who take it blindly and can't back up what they spew.

Those types are actually easy to spot for a couple of reasons...

Their MO (at least here, but you'll see it elsewhere) is to read a partisan site, cut and paste it here, with a broad-brush generalization comment against the opposition...

Additionally, their posting habits expose their bias by talking in generalizations and when pressed for backup, often resort to linking to partisan sites or blogs...

I've been posting on political message boards for many years and have seen all kinds.... It's easier to spot them with experience... Personally, I have no patience with these types and will call them on it often...

message boards usually bore me but this one was interesting for some reason
 
Oh come on, there are MORE than enough conservatives on this board to help explain McConnell's double speak....what gives?

What's to explain? He wants to pretend he's a champion of Medicare.

So, it's more "do as I say, not as I do" from the GOP?

Basically. They've got to "protect from Obama" programs they were voting to disband as recently as the early part of this year.
 
What's to explain? He wants to pretend he's a champion of Medicare.

So, it's more "do as I say, not as I do" from the GOP?

Basically. They've got to "protect from Obama" programs they were voting to disband as recently as the early part of this year.

Sounds like GOP political games to me.

Call it Communism or Socialism. That'll scare the hell out of most of our uneducated base. <wink, wink> You betcha!
 
i gothcha. my beef is those who take it blindly and can't back up what they spew.

Those types are actually easy to spot for a couple of reasons...

Their MO (at least here, but you'll see it elsewhere) is to read a partisan site, cut and paste it here, with a broad-brush generalization comment against the opposition...

Additionally, their posting habits expose their bias by talking in generalizations and when pressed for backup, often resort to linking to partisan sites or blogs...

I've been posting on political message boards for many years and have seen all kinds.... It's easier to spot them with experience... Personally, I have no patience with these types and will call them on it often...

message boards usually bore me but this one was interesting for some reason

Give it time...
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top