Originally posted by no1marauder You are either very misinformed or deliberately disingenuous. Progressives by and large do not support a "national health care system" if you mean a NHS like the UK; they support a single payer system.
Of course, you offer no apology for lying; you do it continually on this board. I hardly feel it necessary to apologize for agreeing with K ...[text shortened]... s, tens of millions uninsured, working class people bankrupted by medical bills etc. etc. etc.
Its truly mystifying how this thread gradually wandered off from its original topic of discussion, and even more bewildering is the reaction to whodey's left-wing caricature, I never imagined it would be so arousing to the likes of no1 and co.
Originally posted by generalissimo Its truly mystifying how this thread gradually wandered off from its original topic of discussion, and even more bewildering is the reaction to whodey's left-wing caricature, I never imagined it would be so arousing to the likes of no1 and co.
I like Dennis Kucinich and agree with most of his politics. Whodey posted an obvious falsehood regarding him and I thought I'd set the record straight.
I don't regard Beck as nearly as important as you do and don't feel compelled to answer every absurdity he claims; I don't have that much time. I'm sorry if the thread was pulled somewhat off-topic, but that's whodey's fault for writing more lies on this forum.
Originally posted by no1marauder I like Dennis Kucinich and agree with most of his politics. Whodey posted an obvious falsehood regarding him and I thought I'd set the record straight.
I don't regard Beck as nearly as important as you do and don't feel compelled to answer every absurdity he claims; I don't have that much time. I'm sorry if the thread was pulled somewhat off-topic, but that's whodey's fault for writing more lies on this forum.
I like Dennis Kucinich and agree with most of his politics. Whodey posted an obvious falsehood regarding him and I thought I'd set the record straight. Which is far enough.
I don't regard Beck as nearly as important as you do and don't feel compelled to answer every absurdity he claims; I don't have that much time. I'm sorry if the thread was pulled somewhat off-topic, but that's whodey's fault for writing more lies on this forum. This thread doesn't have beck's importance as a topic of discussion, I was only curious to know what others would think of his statements, nothing more nothing less. I understand your reasons to confront whodey on his claims, but nevertheless you should know that any inaccurate statements of his are only an extension of his grotesque caricature, and are not meant to be considered as worthy of response.
Originally posted by generalissimo I understand your reasons to confront whodey on his claims, but nevertheless you should know that any inaccurate statements of his are only an extension of his grotesque caricature, and are not meant to be considered as worthy of response.[/b]
So let me get this straight, you buy Kucinichs explanation as to why he voted for Obamacare?
Originally posted by whodey So let me get this straight, you buy Kucinichs explanation as to why he voted for Obamacare?
First, your lie was that he offered "no explanation". Clearly he has. Many times.
Second, what part don't you "buy"? The "better than the existing situation" part and/or the "not damaging the President who is the leader of his party" part? Both are perfectly plausible and reasonable unlike your ravings on this board.
Originally posted by no1marauder First, your lie was that he offered "no explanation". Clearly he has. Many times.
Second, what part don't you "buy"? The "better than the existing situation" part and/or the "not damaging the President who is the leader of his party" part? Both are perfectly plausible and reasonable unlike your ravings on this board.
His job is to represent the American people not President Obama. My argument is that he switched due to political pressure rather than what was best for the American people. In that regard, his explanation is wanting to say the least.
Originally posted by whodey His job is to represent the American people not President Obama. My argument is that he switched due to political pressure rather than what was best for the American people. In that regard, his explanation is wanting to say the least.
So you claimed he had given "no explanation" because in fact he had given an explanation but you disagreed with his explanation?
Originally posted by FMF So you claimed he had given "no explanation" because in fact he had given an explanation but you disagreed with his explanation?
If the explanation is, "Golly gee, I don't want to ruin the Obama Presidency but voting no" then yes that is no meaingful explanation.
Originally posted by whodey If the explanation is, "Golly gee, I don't want to ruin the Obama Presidency but voting no" then yes that is no meaingful explanation.
But you didn't claim that he made "no meaningful explanation". Why do you think telling lies - across multiple topics and threads, and doing so regularly - in some way enhances the conviction of your opinions?
glenn beck uncovers the truth about evil progressives
22 Aug '10 15:09
Back to Top