|
|
Can't wait to read this thread while the debate is going on instead of watching the debate.
|
On October 17 2012 08:42 Rotodyne wrote:
Can't wait to read this thread while the debate is going on instead of watching the debate.
Cue xDaunt's scoring! 100-3 Romney!
EDIT: (I'm only joking)
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 17 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:25 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 08:07 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:48 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:37 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote:Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html i think he meant that people are not turned away from the ER because of a lack of insurance. by law, ER care cannot be withheld or taken away based on inability to pay. But the fact remains that thousands of people die every year because of lack of insurance, laws that the ER must stabilize people notwithstanding. The other fact remains that not having insurance doesn't mean that you get zero healthcare. Nor does Obamacare mean that everyone will have insurance. Nor does having insurance mean unlimited healthcare. These are problems that cannot be solved if you pretend people dying preventable deaths don't exist in the first place though! You also can't come up with good solutions if you mis-represent reality. That's exactly what I just posted? Ermm, isn't denying that having insurance gives you access to better healthcare. I think you need to re-read what he said. He's not mis-representing reality - you are. Who is he? Mitt Romney? On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote:Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html Are you denying that Romney said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." ? Here's what he said: Show nested quote +“We don’t have a setting across this country where if you don’t have insurance, we just say to you, ‘Tough luck, you’re going to die when you have your heart attack,’ ” he said as he offered more hints as to what he would put in place of “Obamacare,” which he has pledged to repeal.
“No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital. We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.” In context there is nothing, absolutely nothing incorrect about what he said. If you have a heart attack you will go to the hospital, regardless if you are insured or not, and the hospital will absolutely try to save your life.
Putting details aside, are you seriously arguing that people don't die because they don't have health insurance? Take a moment to let that seep in.
|
On October 17 2012 08:43 Shelke14 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:42 Rotodyne wrote:
Can't wait to read this thread while the debate is going on instead of watching the debate. Cue xDaunt's scoring! 100-3 Romney! EDIT: (I'm only joking)
I'm expecting a draw tonight.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 17 2012 08:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:43 Shelke14 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:42 Rotodyne wrote:
Can't wait to read this thread while the debate is going on instead of watching the debate. Cue xDaunt's scoring! 100-3 Romney! EDIT: (I'm only joking) I'm expecting a draw tonight.
Me too! high-five.
|
On October 17 2012 08:43 Shelke14 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:42 Rotodyne wrote:
Can't wait to read this thread while the debate is going on instead of watching the debate. Cue xDaunt's scoring! 100-3 Romney!
Nah, his point system is a mess, but he ends up bending and twisting his pointgiving in the later stages to get to a point where he overall can stand behind it. His method is not very good, but he is sufficiently concerned about his final standing to "steer it"
|
I score xDaunt 2-0 in debate scoring.
|
On October 17 2012 08:49 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:43 Shelke14 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:42 Rotodyne wrote:
Can't wait to read this thread while the debate is going on instead of watching the debate. Cue xDaunt's scoring! 100-3 Romney! Nah, his point system is a mess, but he ends up bending and twisting his pointgiving in the later stages to get to a point where he overall can stand behind it. His method is not very good, but he is sufficiently concerned about his final standing to "stear it"
Overall I like xDaunt's scoring, but there are some inconsistencies, like when Romney lied and Obama failed to call him out that was a point for Romney but when Biden lied and Ryan failed to call him out that was a point for Ryan.
|
On October 17 2012 08:49 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:43 Shelke14 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:42 Rotodyne wrote:
Can't wait to read this thread while the debate is going on instead of watching the debate. Cue xDaunt's scoring! 100-3 Romney! Nah, his point system is a mess, but he ends up bending and twisting his pointgiving in the later stages to get to a point where he overall can stand behind it, His method is not very good, but he is sufficiently concerned about his final standing to "stear it"
I don't bend anything. The Biden-Ryan was a mess because almost 30 minutes of it was unscoreable. Biden won the first 30 minutes, the middle 30 couldn't be scored, and Ryan finished well at the end. Though I finished with a tie, I did say that I felt that Biden won overall. The first Romney-Obama debate was clearly a curb-stomping as my score generally reflected (if anything, I was generous to Obama).
|
On October 17 2012 08:41 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 08:25 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 08:07 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:48 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:37 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
i think he meant that people are not turned away from the ER because of a lack of insurance. by law, ER care cannot be withheld or taken away based on inability to pay. But the fact remains that thousands of people die every year because of lack of insurance, laws that the ER must stabilize people notwithstanding. The other fact remains that not having insurance doesn't mean that you get zero healthcare. Nor does Obamacare mean that everyone will have insurance. Nor does having insurance mean unlimited healthcare. These are problems that cannot be solved if you pretend people dying preventable deaths don't exist in the first place though! You also can't come up with good solutions if you mis-represent reality. That's exactly what I just posted? Ermm, isn't denying that having insurance gives you access to better healthcare. I think you need to re-read what he said. He's not mis-representing reality - you are. Who is he? Mitt Romney? On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote:Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html Are you denying that Romney said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." ? Here's what he said: “We don’t have a setting across this country where if you don’t have insurance, we just say to you, ‘Tough luck, you’re going to die when you have your heart attack,’ ” he said as he offered more hints as to what he would put in place of “Obamacare,” which he has pledged to repeal.
“No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital. We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.” In context there is nothing, absolutely nothing incorrect about what he said. If you have a heart attack you will go to the hospital, regardless if you are insured or not, and the hospital will absolutely try to save your life. Not every life-threatening condition is acute. Somehow I doubt Mitt Romney is so ignorant he's never heard of things like "cancer".
Sorry, Romney never said cancer treatment is fully covered even if you don't have insurance. You are making his statement out to be more than it was.
|
On October 17 2012 08:45 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 08:25 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 08:07 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:48 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:37 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
i think he meant that people are not turned away from the ER because of a lack of insurance. by law, ER care cannot be withheld or taken away based on inability to pay. But the fact remains that thousands of people die every year because of lack of insurance, laws that the ER must stabilize people notwithstanding. The other fact remains that not having insurance doesn't mean that you get zero healthcare. Nor does Obamacare mean that everyone will have insurance. Nor does having insurance mean unlimited healthcare. These are problems that cannot be solved if you pretend people dying preventable deaths don't exist in the first place though! You also can't come up with good solutions if you mis-represent reality. That's exactly what I just posted? Ermm, isn't denying that having insurance gives you access to better healthcare. I think you need to re-read what he said. He's not mis-representing reality - you are. Who is he? Mitt Romney? On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote:Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html Are you denying that Romney said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." ? Here's what he said: “We don’t have a setting across this country where if you don’t have insurance, we just say to you, ‘Tough luck, you’re going to die when you have your heart attack,’ ” he said as he offered more hints as to what he would put in place of “Obamacare,” which he has pledged to repeal.
“No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital. We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.” In context there is nothing, absolutely nothing incorrect about what he said. If you have a heart attack you will go to the hospital, regardless if you are insured or not, and the hospital will absolutely try to save your life. Putting details aside, are you seriously arguing that people don't die because they don't have health insurance? Take a moment to let that seep in.
I'm not arguing that at all. Neither is Romney. Take a moment to let that seep in.
|
On October 17 2012 08:53 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:49 radiatoren wrote:On October 17 2012 08:43 Shelke14 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:42 Rotodyne wrote:
Can't wait to read this thread while the debate is going on instead of watching the debate. Cue xDaunt's scoring! 100-3 Romney! Nah, his point system is a mess, but he ends up bending and twisting his pointgiving in the later stages to get to a point where he overall can stand behind it. His method is not very good, but he is sufficiently concerned about his final standing to "stear it" Overall I like xDaunt's scoring, but there are some inconsistencies, like when Romney lied and Obama failed to call him out that was a point for Romney but when Biden lied and Ryan failed to call him out that was a point for Ryan.
If you are referring to the Catholic Church thing, Ryan did call him out on it. I would have awarded the point to Ryan anyway because Biden failed to answer Ryan's charge that the Obama administration supports radical pro-choice policies (I explained as such, too).
Admittedly, the lies are hard to score. You have to weigh the obviousness of the lie against whether the other candidate was able to point it out.
|
What Obama has to do is bend the rules. Ask Romney a couple of direct questions, and see what happens. Romney's natural response will be to protest -- which will make him look bad.
Obama: "Governor Romney, why don't you give details on your tax plan?"
Romney: "I'm sorry, but I'm here to address the audiences, not -- "
Obama: "Oh yes, that's right. You don't like it when people ask questions."
|
On October 17 2012 09:00 Defacer wrote:
What Obama has to do is bend the rules. Ask Romney a couple of direct questions, and see what happens. Romney's natural response will be to protest -- which will make him look bad.
Obama: "Governor Romney, why don't you give details on your tax plan?"
Romney: "I'm sorry, but I'm here to address the audiences, not -- "
Obama: "Oh yes, that's right. You don't like it when people ask questions."
You didn't pay attention to the first debate if you think that Romney won't take Obama on.
|
On October 17 2012 09:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 09:00 Defacer wrote:
What Obama has to do is bend the rules. Ask Romney a couple of direct questions, and see what happens. Romney's natural response will be to protest -- which will make him look bad.
Obama: "Governor Romney, why don't you give details on your tax plan?"
Romney: "I'm sorry, but I'm here to address the audiences, not -- "
Obama: "Oh yes, that's right. You don't like it when people ask questions."
You didn't pay attention to the first debate if you think that Romney won't take Obama on.
Oh, I'm not saying that Romney is afraid of Obama, but Romney's natural inclination in these debates is fuss about 'the rules' and bitch to the moderator about equal time and getting the last word -- in other words, he treats it like a game and likes working the ref.
One of rules is that they aren't allowed to direct questions to each other. My gut feeling is that Romney's first instinct will be offense, like "HEY HEY HEY Those aren't the rules!!!"
|
On October 17 2012 09:07 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 09:02 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 09:00 Defacer wrote:
What Obama has to do is bend the rules. Ask Romney a couple of direct questions, and see what happens. Romney's natural response will be to protest -- which will make him look bad.
Obama: "Governor Romney, why don't you give details on your tax plan?"
Romney: "I'm sorry, but I'm here to address the audiences, not -- "
Obama: "Oh yes, that's right. You don't like it when people ask questions."
You didn't pay attention to the first debate if you think that Romney won't take Obama on. Oh, I'm not saying that Romney is afraid of Obama, but Romney's natural inclination in these debates is fuss about 'the rules' and bitch to the moderator about equal time and getting the last word -- in other words, he treats it like a game and likes working the ref. One of rules is that they aren't allowed to direct questions to each other. My gut feeling is that Romney's first instinct will be to be "HEY HEY HEY Those aren't the rules!!!"
You are crazy. Romney will go right after Obama if given the invitation to do so. He has been consistently aggressive in all of the debates when challenged.
|
First townhall debate question. "Who's your favorite modern family character and why?"
Sorry, I can't stand townhall anything, just venting. Anticipating horrible questions.
|
On October 17 2012 09:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 09:07 Defacer wrote:On October 17 2012 09:02 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 09:00 Defacer wrote:
What Obama has to do is bend the rules. Ask Romney a couple of direct questions, and see what happens. Romney's natural response will be to protest -- which will make him look bad.
Obama: "Governor Romney, why don't you give details on your tax plan?"
Romney: "I'm sorry, but I'm here to address the audiences, not -- "
Obama: "Oh yes, that's right. You don't like it when people ask questions."
You didn't pay attention to the first debate if you think that Romney won't take Obama on. Oh, I'm not saying that Romney is afraid of Obama, but Romney's natural inclination in these debates is fuss about 'the rules' and bitch to the moderator about equal time and getting the last word -- in other words, he treats it like a game and likes working the ref. One of rules is that they aren't allowed to direct questions to each other. My gut feeling is that Romney's first instinct will be to be "HEY HEY HEY Those aren't the rules!!!" You are crazy. Romney will go right after Obama if given the invitation to do so. He has been consistently aggressive in all of the debates when challenged.
That's precisely the point, and that's exactly what Obama needs to happen. Obama has to find a way to turn this innocuous town hall format into a real debate. Romney is in a position that he can play it safe. Obama has to find a way to draw him into a real discussion, instead of farcical event where they just regurgitate their talking points to yokels.
The only way I can think of Obama doing that, without looking unpresidential, is by flirting with the rules, which 95% of the viewing audience know nothing about.
Obama needs a confrontation because this a debate which he needs to win.
|
On October 17 2012 09:17 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 09:09 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 09:07 Defacer wrote:On October 17 2012 09:02 xDaunt wrote:On October 17 2012 09:00 Defacer wrote:
What Obama has to do is bend the rules. Ask Romney a couple of direct questions, and see what happens. Romney's natural response will be to protest -- which will make him look bad.
Obama: "Governor Romney, why don't you give details on your tax plan?"
Romney: "I'm sorry, but I'm here to address the audiences, not -- "
Obama: "Oh yes, that's right. You don't like it when people ask questions."
You didn't pay attention to the first debate if you think that Romney won't take Obama on. Oh, I'm not saying that Romney is afraid of Obama, but Romney's natural inclination in these debates is fuss about 'the rules' and bitch to the moderator about equal time and getting the last word -- in other words, he treats it like a game and likes working the ref. One of rules is that they aren't allowed to direct questions to each other. My gut feeling is that Romney's first instinct will be to be "HEY HEY HEY Those aren't the rules!!!" You are crazy. Romney will go right after Obama if given the invitation to do so. He has been consistently aggressive in all of the debates when challenged. That's precisely the point, and that's exactly what Obama needs to happen. Obama has to find a way to turn this innocuous town hall format into a real debate. Romney is in a position that he can play it safe. Obama has to find a way to draw him into a real discussion, instead of farcical event where they just regurgitate their talking points to yokels. The only way I can think of Obama doing that, without looking unpresidential, is by flirting with the rules, which 95% of the viewing audience know nothing about. Obama needs a confrontation because this a debate which he needs to win.
I agree that Obama needs to push the envelope, but he needs to be careful. Obama's greatest (and, arguably, only) asset is his likability. If he comes off like Biden did, he is toast.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 17 2012 08:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:45 Souma wrote:On October 17 2012 08:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 08:25 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:13 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 08:07 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:48 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 17 2012 07:37 HunterX11 wrote:
[quote]
But the fact remains that thousands of people die every year because of lack of insurance, laws that the ER must stabilize people notwithstanding. The other fact remains that not having insurance doesn't mean that you get zero healthcare. Nor does Obamacare mean that everyone will have insurance. Nor does having insurance mean unlimited healthcare. These are problems that cannot be solved if you pretend people dying preventable deaths don't exist in the first place though! You also can't come up with good solutions if you mis-represent reality. That's exactly what I just posted? Ermm, isn't denying that having insurance gives you access to better healthcare. I think you need to re-read what he said. He's not mis-representing reality - you are. Who is he? Mitt Romney? On October 17 2012 07:25 HunterX11 wrote:Wow, I know this is a few days old, but I didn't catch this particular quote from the discussion Romney when he was talking about healthcare in America because most people focused on the comments about ER care. He said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." Willard Mitt Romney, of his own volition, without coercion, spoke those words. I know there's been a lot of brouhaha over fact checking, but lying over what by the most conservative estimates are still more people than the number who died in 9/11, dying every year, is a pretty big whopper. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/10/11/health-care-called-choice.html Are you denying that Romney said, "We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance." ? Here's what he said: “We don’t have a setting across this country where if you don’t have insurance, we just say to you, ‘Tough luck, you’re going to die when you have your heart attack,’ ” he said as he offered more hints as to what he would put in place of “Obamacare,” which he has pledged to repeal.
“No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it’s paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital. We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.” In context there is nothing, absolutely nothing incorrect about what he said. If you have a heart attack you will go to the hospital, regardless if you are insured or not, and the hospital will absolutely try to save your life. Putting details aside, are you seriously arguing that people don't die because they don't have health insurance? Take a moment to let that seep in. I'm not arguing that at all. Neither is Romney. Take a moment to let that seep in.
I'm reading his comment, over and over again, and yes, that is what he is saying. He's saying that if you have an emergency, you won't have to worry because you'll be treated regardless of whether you have insurance or not, but what he fails to realize is that you don't just get free treatment if you're uninsured if it's not an immediate emergency and some preventable emergencies will lead to death. So say someone has some symptoms appearing, but they refuse to go to the doctor because it would cost them too much money. Two days later they have an aneurism and die alone in their home because they were unable to call an ambulance. If they had received treatment two days earlier it could have prevented the aneurism, but they couldn't because they didn't have the money. So yeah, either one: he's severely downplaying the situation, or two: he's ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
