|
|
On October 17 2012 09:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 09:17 Defacer wrote: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.
Yeah. For example, Obama asking Romney a seemingly reasonable question about his tax plan, puts Romney into a situation where a) he reminds everyone about the 'rules' on national television and looks petty as a result or b) has to address the question.
That's all. That's the only advice I would have for Obama if I could give it to him. Play dumb with the rules, because the viewers don't know better. And make Romney choose between enforcing the rules or going along with you.
|
On October 17 2012 09:17 jdseemoreglass wrote:
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.
Well if it makes you feel any better I think the questions will be pre-filtered by Gallup. Can't be any worse than the "moderation" in the first debate.
|
I think only Biden or Clinton could get away with what Biden did, and even then he was close to the edge.
They've been selling their reputations as gee-golly-blue-collar-rednecks for decades.
|
all i know is i think romney is definitely winning... i see his face EVERYWHERE all the time , and honestly every single time that anyone sees romney's face it's a victory for the republicans
|
On October 17 2012 09:21 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So yeah, either one: he's severely downplaying the situation, or two: he's ignorant.
Wow, no... just no. This wasn't his definitive statement on the entire US healthcare system. It was a few sentences. You can't extrapolate to your heart's content from a few sentences.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 17 2012 09:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 09:21 Souma wrote:On October 17 2012 08:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. So yeah, either one: he's severely downplaying the situation, or two: he's ignorant. Wow, no... just no. This wasn't his definitive statement on the entire US healthcare system. It was a few sentences. You can't extrapolate to your heart's content from a few sentences.
Sure we can. It's obvious as to what was implied to the people who care to actually listen. But then again arguing semantics with you is something I should leave to kwizach as I surely don't want to go five pages repeating myself.
|
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein was arrested outside of Hofstra University on Tuesday after attempted to enter debate grounds.
According to Stein's campaign press statement, Stein and running mate Cheri Honkala joined supporters outside the Hofstra campus at 2pm, where Stein declared, "We are here to bring the courage of those excluded from our politics to this mock debate, this mockery of democracy." When they started to walk onto the debate grounds, they were stopped by police officers, and then the two women sat down on the ground.
Student-run news organization Long Island Report posted a video of Stein and Honkala sitting, with an officer arguing, "You're blocking traffic." After Honkala stated, "We want to practice our first amendment rights," the police can been seen removing the women from the ground and leading them away.
Source
|
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.
Willard Mitt Romney, the man who is running for President of the United States of America, said the following words in the English language which were transcribed by journalists present while he was speaking:
"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. 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."
|
On October 17 2012 08:50 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I score xDaunt 2-0 in debate scoring.
i score you 0-1 on xDaunt's scoring of the debate. jk.
i expect obama to win the debate... narrowly. i hope he's more prepared based on how shitty he did and can channel a little biden. the fact that expectations are lower should help perception as well.
oh, my preferred presidential candidate is in jail again.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 17 2012 09:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein was arrested outside of Hofstra University on Tuesday after attempted to enter debate grounds.
According to Stein's campaign press statement, Stein and running mate Cheri Honkala joined supporters outside the Hofstra campus at 2pm, where Stein declared, "We are here to bring the courage of those excluded from our politics to this mock debate, this mockery of democracy." When they started to walk onto the debate grounds, they were stopped by police officers, and then the two women sat down on the ground.
Student-run news organization Long Island Report posted a video of Stein and Honkala sitting, with an officer arguing, "You're blocking traffic." After Honkala stated, "We want to practice our first amendment rights," the police can been seen removing the women from the ground and leading them away. Source
Oh Jill Stein, what a commendable woman. I could never fight the good fight as she so willingly does.
|
On October 17 2012 09:38 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 08:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Willard Mitt Romney, the man who is running for President of the United States of America, said the following words in the English language which were transcribed by journalists present while he was speaking: "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. 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."
He made a factually correct statement about the US healthcare system. Why you have a problem with that is beyond me.
|
Based off body language alone, I think Ryan took the Biden-Ryan debates by a landslide. It is hard to judge in general who 'won' it felt like one person would make a point, and in the rebuttal the other would claim he stands for exactly opposite of what he just claimed... It just became a mess. Which is why I think the body language is a key factor.
I thought the facial reactions, while the other person was speaking, were a good way to measure confidence and/or an edge they may have on their opponent. It felt though that after the halfway point they became over used and exaggerated. Almost to a point where it made Biden look like a cornered fool and Ryan like the intelligent calm collective one. I was recording time during the debates because it is always brought up 'who had fair time, etc' and sure enough biden started using it towards the end as a 'weapon'. The funny thing though, was he had +2mins on Ryan by my records, and that right there kinda set me off... Your giving time to answer the question, don't start it by saying 'will i have enough time to answer?'... depends are you going to ask another stupid question while the clock is ticking? I think remaining calm is what won it for Ryan, calling your opponent out when they are lying is justifiable, but the over use of remarks, interruptions, and exaggerated facial expressions only make that person look stupid. I though they were neck and neck the entire debate until that last 10 min stretch, thats when I noticed Biden breaking... just my thoughts comment if you felt otherwise.
|
On October 17 2012 09:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 09:38 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Willard Mitt Romney, the man who is running for President of the United States of America, said the following words in the English language which were transcribed by journalists present while he was speaking: "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. 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." He made a factually correct statement about the US healthcare system. Why you have a problem with that is beyond me.
That's his 'alternative' to the ACA.
Why you don't have a problem with that statement is beyond me.
|
On October 17 2012 09:41 DanceSC wrote:
Based off body language alone, I think Ryan took the Biden-Ryan debates by a landslide. It is hard to judge in general who 'won' it felt like one person would make a point, and in the rebuttal the other would claim he stands for exactly opposite of what he just claimed... It just became a mess. Which is why I think the body language is a key factor.
I thought the facial reactions, while the other person was speaking, were a good way to measure confidence and/or an edge they may have on their opponent. It felt though that after the halfway point they became over used and exaggerated. Almost to a point where it made Biden look like a cornered fool and Ryan like the intelligent calm collective one. I was recording time during the debates because it is always brought up 'who had fair time, etc' and sure enough biden started using it towards the end as a 'weapon'. The funny thing though, was he had +2mins on Ryan by my records, and that right there kinda set me off... Your giving time to answer the question, don't start it by saying 'will i have enough time to answer?'... depends are you going to ask another stupid question while the clock is ticking? I think remaining calm is what won it for Ryan, calling your opponent out when they are lying is justifiable, but the over use of remarks, interruptions, and exaggerated facial expressions only make that person look stupid. I though they were neck and neck the entire debate until that last 10 min stretch, thats when I noticed Biden breaking... just my thoughts comment if you felt otherwise.
Eh, one could argue the result of the VP debate either way. Most polls of the results were fairly evenly split, which is usually the case. The first debate was definitely an anomaly in this regard.
|
On October 17 2012 09:41 DanceSC wrote:
Based off body language alone, I think Ryan took the Biden-Ryan debates by a landslide. It is hard to judge in general who 'won' it felt like one person would make a point, and in the rebuttal the other would claim he stands for exactly opposite of what he just claimed... It just became a mess. Which is why I think the body language is a key factor.
I thought the facial reactions, while the other person was speaking, were a good way to measure confidence and/or an edge they may have on their opponent. It felt though that after the halfway point they became over used and exaggerated. Almost to a point where it made Biden look like a cornered fool and Ryan like the intelligent calm collective one. I was recording time during the debates because it is always brought up 'who had fair time, etc' and sure enough biden started using it towards the end as a 'weapon'. The funny thing though, was he had +2mins on Ryan by my records, and that right there kinda set me off... Your giving time to answer the question, don't start it by saying 'will i have enough time to answer?'... depends are you going to ask another stupid question while the clock is ticking? I think remaining calm is what won it for Ryan, calling your opponent out when they are lying is justifiable, but the over use of remarks, interruptions, and exaggerated facial expressions only make that person look stupid. I though they were neck and neck the entire debate until that last 10 min stretch, thats when I noticed Biden breaking... just my thoughts comment if you felt otherwise.
100% agree. You can tell who would make a better president/VP by turning off the sound and just watching.
|
On October 17 2012 09:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 09:38 HunterX11 wrote:On October 17 2012 08:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Willard Mitt Romney, the man who is running for President of the United States of America, said the following words in the English language which were transcribed by journalists present while he was speaking: "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. 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." He made a factually correct statement about the US healthcare system. Why you have a problem with that is beyond me.
It is factually incorrect and callously glosses over the thousands of people who die every year of treatable illness due to a lack of insurance. We do have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don't have insurance both because they avoid necessary emergency care because of the costs, and because mandatory emergency care still allows people to die of chronic conditions.
|
I actually disagree with xDaunt here. I think Biden won by a landslide. He was in complete control of the debate, he had a response for nearly everything, and he simply came across as more confident and informed. I was very disappointed in Ryan but I didn't have much faith in him in the first place.
As far as how OTHER people scored the debate or how the polls go, it will be a mix of partisanship, subjective assessments at body language, and whether or not Biden came across as too smug. I can't judge how people view things, so I won't try.
|
|
|
Let's see if the democrats finally figure out how to give opening and closing statements (assuming they are allowed).
|
here we go! lets see xdaunts scoring round 3
so far he is 1-1 let see if he can pull ahead
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
