Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    21 Aug '09 22:55
    [i]Americans who consider themselves conservatives [and not moderates] now outnumber Americans who consider themselves liberal [and not moderate] by almost two to one, according to a new poll by the Washington Post and ABC News.

    In the poll of 1,001 adults conducted between July 15-18, respondents were asked: "Would you say your views on most political matters are liberal, moderate, or conservative?"

    Thirty-eight percent said they were conservative, while only 20% said they were liberal. Thirty-nine percent, meanwhile, said they were moderate.

    http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/nation/poll-conservatives-now-outnumber-liberals-almost-two-to-one-in-america


  2. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    21 Aug '09 23:01
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    [i]Americans who consider themselves conservatives [and not moderates] now outnumber Americans who consider themselves liberal [and not moderate] by almost two to one, according to a new poll by the Washington Post and ABC News.

    In the poll of 1,001 adults conducted between July 15-18, respondents were asked: "Would you say your views on most poli ...[text shortened]... oom.com/nation/poll-conservatives-now-outnumber-liberals-almost-two-to-one-in-america


    I am not a Conservative. I do however object to this twisting of information. This is just another way of name calling. Stop picking on those poor Conservatives. That's MY job!!
  3. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    22 Aug '09 00:12 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by bill718
    I am not a Conservative. I do however object to this twisting of information. This is just another way of name calling. Stop picking on those poor Conservatives. That's MY job!!
    Do you object to the title of the article itself, which is heavily biased to make the survey look like it had results that would make conservatives happy?

    The same survey also reports most Americans - not excluding those who are "moderate" on the issue, but a clear majority - think Obama's doing a great job. Would you object to twisting the information by focussing only on that one point?
  4. 22 Aug '09 01:02
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Do you object to the title of the article itself, which is heavily biased to make the survey look like it had results that would make conservatives happy?

    The same survey also reports most Americans - not excluding those who are "moderate" on the issue, but a clear majority - think Obama's doing a great job. Would you object to twisting the information by focussing only on that one point?
    Define extremist. Do you mean those grandmas and grandpas who are a bit disruptive at the townhall meetings? Soooo scary!

    Consider the following:

    Democrats, realizing the success of the President's 'Cash For Clunkers' rebate program, have revamped a major portion of their National Health Care Plan.

    President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Sen. Reed are expected to make this major announcement at a joint news conference later this week. I have obtained an advanced copy of the proposal which is named:

    "CASH FOR CODGERS" and it works like this -- Couples wishing to access health care funds in order to pay for the delivery of a child will be required to turn in one old person. The amount the government grants them will be fixed according to a sliding scale. Older and more prescription dependent codgers will garner the highest amounts. Special "Bonuses" will be paid for those submitting codgers in targeted groups, such as smokers, alcohol drinkers, persons 10 pounds over their government prescribed weight, members of private country clubs, people who live in condo towers and gated communities and any member of the Republican Party . Smaller bonuses will be given for codgers who consume beef, soda, fried foods, potato chips, lattes, whole milk, dairy products, bacon, brussel sprouts, or Girl Scout Cookies. All codgers will be rendered totally useless via toxic injection. This will insure that they are not secretly resold or their body parts harvested to keep other codgers in repair.

    Remember you heard it here first!
  5. Standard member KellyJayonline
    Walk your Faith
    22 Aug '09 02:34
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    Define extremist. Do you mean those grandmas and grandpas who are a bit disruptive at the townhall meetings? Soooo scary!

    Consider the following:

    Democrats, realizing the success of the President's 'Cash For Clunkers' rebate program, have revamped a major portion of their National Health Care Plan.

    President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Sen. Re ...[text shortened]... dy parts harvested to keep other codgers in repair.

    Remember you heard it here first!
    Well the cash for votes went so well, I guess cash for Codgers isn't a
    huge reach.
    Kelly
  6. 22 Aug '09 03:00 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    "CASH FOR CODGERS" and it works like this -- Couples wishing to access health care funds in order to pay for the delivery of a child will be required to turn in one old person. The amount the government grants them will be fixed according to a sliding scale. Older and more prescription dependent codgers will garner the highest amounts. Special "Bonuses" ...[text shortened]... body parts harvested to keep other codgers in repair.

    Remember you heard it here first![/b]
    I think I can do better. I wrote my Congressman with the following proposal. I call it, "No tax payers left behind".

    Since we are all paying for each others health care, it is only fitting that we all have a say in how we treat our bodies. Therefore, I propose new taxes on the following items: French Fries, hamburgers, (in fact, anything fried), alcohol, as well as anything with high sugar content such as candy and such. Of course, not only will they be taxed extra for such decadent treats that are "bad" for them, they will also be forced to watch the movie, "Super Size Me". All of these proceeds will help pay for the new NHC program, or I should say, keep afloat the sinking ship a bit longer.

    Edit: Notice I left out smokes because they have already received tax increases because the messiah beat me to it!!

    Of course, the nontaxpaying citizens, such as the unborn or elderly, will either be given marginal treatment or erradicated altogether After all, it is only fair because they are not paying their "fair share".
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 Aug '09 03:18
    Originally posted by whodey
    Of course, the nontaxpaying citizens, such as the unborn or elderly, will either be given marginal treatment or erradicated altogether After all, it is only fair because they are not paying their "fair share".
    The 'eradication of the elderly' nonsense has been completely debunked on these threads already. Repeatedly. And yet you are still using it as one of your 'debating points'. Why is that?
  8. 22 Aug '09 03:27 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    The 'eradication of the elderly' nonsense has been completely debunked on these threads already. Repeatedly. And yet you are still using it as one of your 'debating points'. Why is that?
    Just trying my hand at a bit of humor, so if you can't see the humor then I guess more is the pity.

    Of course, I don't think the bill will erradicate the elderly, but I think there will be rationing. Even insurance companies do the same. The main difference for me is, that instead of various insurance companies doing the rationing independently, the government will take over and centralize the rationing. So tell me FMF, do you see any problems with the government being in charge of it all? Not only will they now have a detailed account of your health records, they will also be in a position to influence the medical treatment that you recieve. Not to sound too "Orwelleian" or anything, but what if they government does not like you for any reason or views you as a threat at some point? Of course, I am not accusing Obama or anyone else in government who would do such things but one must look at the potential for abuses in the system as well as the immediate ones at hand or else they may be very sorry for it one day.
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 Aug '09 03:31
    Originally posted by whodey
    Just trying my hand at a bit of humor, so if you can't see the humor then I guess more is the pity.
    You strike as being somewhat of a laughingstock. So I suppose I do see the humour of it.
  10. 22 Aug '09 03:35
    Originally posted by FMF
    You strike as being somewhat of a laughingstock. So I suppose I do see the humour of it.
    :'(
  11. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 Aug '09 03:41
    Originally posted by whodey
    So tell me FMF, do you see any problems with the government being in charge of it all? Not only will they now have a detailed account of your health records, they will also be in a position to influence the medical treatment that you recieve. Not to sound too "Orwelleian" or anything, but what if they government does not like you for any reason or views you ...[text shortened]... he system as well as the immediate ones at hand or else they may be very sorry for it one day.
    I don't buy into your paranoid ramblings one little bit.

    I believe you are the target - and victim - of an orchestrated PR counter-offensive by powerful business interests that are threatened by health care reform and whose interests do not overlap with yours in any way.

    Can you cite even one example from the 60 year history of Britain's NHS where the U.K. government "influenced the medical treatment" of its political opponents?
  12. 22 Aug '09 04:08 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    Can you cite even one example from the 60 year history of Britain's NHS where the U.K. government "influenced the medical treatment" of its political opponents?[/b]
    Well of course I can. The state run....er....um...the privately owned media has reported on this many times in fact.

    Once again, one must consider the inherent abuses and not just what is or has occured regardless of the country. Monopolies are to be avoided in the private sector but apparently not in the governmental sector. I say let the states be in control of health care rather than the federal govenment. Share some of that power would ya Mr. Messiah?

    Another issue I have is the cost. Independent Congressional studies have concluded that the costs just don't add up like the Obama administration says they will. In fact, I wonder what they said about Medicare/Medicaid when it was passed? Did they ever forsee it going belly up like it is now? Of course not. The problem is, however, that once these entitlements are passed, such details or possible problems will be hard to reform if not impossible. Heck, just look at how hard it has been to reform the current system? Once an entitlement is passed it becomes a sacred cow set in stone. That is one of the terrifying aspects of them. In fact, I would be more supportive of them if it were mandatory to revisit these programs after so many years. In fact, make it mandatory to reform them according to issues that arise or need addressed.
  13. 22 Aug '09 04:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    [b]I don't buy into your paranoid ramblings one little bit.

    I believe you are the target - and victim - of an orchestrated PR counter-offensive by powerful business interests that are threatened by health care reform and whose interests do not overlap with yours in any way.
    So what do we say about the powerful drug industries promoting the new health care plan? Can we say the same for them? They better watch out no matter how much money they plan to make. After all, they may be next on the list.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    22 Aug '09 04:50
    Originally posted by FMF
    Can you cite even one example from the 60 year history of Britain's NHS where the U.K. government "influenced the medical treatment" of its political opponents?

    Originally posted by whodey
    Well of course I can.
    Then do so.
  15. 22 Aug '09 05:53 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    Then do so.
    Once again my humor has failed you, so I will stop torturing you with it and spell out what I am trying to convey. You assume that if such occurences existed, that the media would either be willing or able to report these occurences, especially in light of the fact that many question the states influence in popular media to begin with.

    My contention here is not that abuses have occured, my contention here is that the table is being set for them to occur. Case in point is the Patriot act. Many of my conservative friends would defend it by arguing that there is nothing to fear from it. They defend it by asking what abuses have occured with it in place? My response is that I should not have to provide examples. I should only need to point to potential abuses that can occur to question the wisdom of its creation. Its just simply a scary peice of legislation.