excerpts of President Obama's address to Congress tonight

Status
Not open for further replies.
Banjo said:
Oh, you're just grasping at the straws. Souggy made it quite clear, it's wrong, no matter who they are. But he's saying that by saying that someone else did it too doesn't devalue one's action.

Two wrongs does not make a right.
Click to expand...

No. Stating it unequivocally would make it clear. Saying that it's "wrong" is one thing but to avoid saying that Dems who do boos or interrupt rudely a presidential speech should apologize is another thing.

It's either an unequivocal "yes" they should apologize if they booed during the speech or "no" they don't have to. One or the other. Weasling around it doesn't help.
 
kokonut said:
No. Stating it unequivocally would make it clear. Saying that it's "wrong" is one thing but to avoid saying that Dems who do boos or interrupt rudely a presidential speech should apologize is another thing.

It's either an unequivocal "yes" they should apologize if they booed during the speech or "no" they don't have to. One or the other. Weasling around it doesn't help.
Click to expand...

Boy, you really are trying to a spin on it. The only problem is, it's not spinning very well.
 
Holy crap.

You would get an F in any History or Philosophy class at post-secondary institutes if you choose to debate in this manner. The premises are already laid out. Why do you need a "yes" or "no" answer?

- Democrats shouldn't have booed in the first place.
- Republicans shouldn't have yelled out "it's a lie."
- Two wrongs does not make a right.
- "tu quoque" arguments are not a proper way to debate.
- No apologies would make up for their inexcusable actions for either party.
- Historian's fallacy (or hindsight bias) is not appropriate for a debate like this because it's over three years ago.
 
Last edited:
souggy said:
Holy crap.

You would get an F in any History or Philosophy class at post-secondary institute if you choose to debate in this manner. The premises are already laid out. Why do you need a "yes" or "no" answer?

- Democrats shouldn't had booed in the first place.
- Republicans shouldn't had yelled out "it's a lie."
- Two wrongs does not make a right.
- "tu quoque" arguments are not a proper way to debate.
- No apologies would make up for their inexcusable actions for either party.
- Historian's fallacy (or hindsight bias) is not appropriate for a debate like this because it's over three years ago.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
collective boos are more acceptable to show their displeasure or disagreement than one person shouting the actual words, "YOU LIE!"

The Republicans sure acted like whiny babies.
 
Not according to the August 25, 2009 Congressional Research Service on "Treatment of Noncitizens in H.R. 3200."

H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether
legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.27
.
.
Some have expressed concerns that since H.R. 3200 does not contain a mechanism to verify immigration status, the prohibitions on certain noncitizens (e.g, nonimmigrants and unauthorized aliens) receiving the credits may not be enforced. However, others note that under §142(a)(3) of
the bill, it is the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner (Commissioner) to administer the “individual affordability credits under subtitle C of title II, including determination of eligibility for such credits.” Thus, it appears, absent of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure, that the Commissioner would be responsible for determining a mechanism to verify the eligibility of noncitizens for the credits.
Click to expand...

http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/noncitizens.pdf

Again, there are no enforcement mechanisms in the Bill that prevents, prohibits or ban illegal aliens from receiving their health care subsidies. It's all loose ended leaving it up to the Commissioner to determine that which is OUTSIDE of the Bill.
 
See post #190. Your claims have already been debunked. And the date is Sept. 10th on the debunking.
 
kokonut said:
Not according to the August 25, 2009 Congressional Research Service on "Treatment of Noncitizens in H.R. 3200."



http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/noncitizens.pdf

Again, there are no enforcement mechanisms in the Bill that prevents, prohibits or ban illegal aliens from receiving their health care subsidies. It's all loose ended leaving it up to the Commissioner to determine that which is OUTSIDE of the Bill.
Click to expand...

According to MSNBC.com,

"The House bill says illegal immigrants cannot get subsidies to take part in the new insurance system, but doesn't have a specific mechanism to verify immigration status. Illegal immigrants residing in the United States would be required to have health insurance."


"The lead Senate Democrat on immigration policy, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., will unveil an immigration reform bill this fall. The bill is likely to provide a path to legal status for some illegal immigrants. Once they got legal status, they'd be able to get covered under the House insurance bill and would get subsidies if they met the income requirement. Still unknown: Will Congress shorten the current 5-year wait for non-citizens to get Medicaid and CHIP?"

Interesting.
 
jillio said:
BTW, since you are so fond of polls, CNN reported a 69% approval rating for Obama this morning following the speech!:wave:
Click to expand...

Hmmm, that's nice considering that the sample of those who watched the speech in this poll was 45 percent Democratic and 18 percent Republican. More than double the difference in percentage over Republicans that were polled.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Poll: Double-digit post-speech jump for Obama plan - Blogs from CNN.com
 
kokonut said:
Hmmm, that's nice considering that the sample of those who watched the speech in this poll was 45 percent Democratic and 18 percent Republican. More than double the difference in percentage over Republicans that were polled.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Poll: Double-digit post-speech jump for Obama plan - Blogs from CNN.com
Click to expand...

So, now you are back to the old "polls don't count" argument because this one doesn't support your claims?:laugh2:
 
Barbaro said:
According to MSNBC.com,

"The House bill says illegal immigrants cannot get subsidies to take part in the new insurance system, but doesn't have a specific mechanism to verify immigration status. Illegal immigrants residing in the United States would be required to have health insurance."


"The lead Senate Democrat on immigration policy, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., will unveil an immigration reform bill this fall. The bill is likely to provide a path to legal status for some illegal immigrants. Once they got legal status, they'd be able to get covered under the House insurance bill and would get subsidies if they met the income requirement. Still unknown: Will Congress shorten the current 5-year wait for non-citizens to get Medicaid and CHIP?"

Interesting.
Click to expand...
That's the idea. Immigration "Reform" is predicated on this health care Bill to pass first else it'll derail/delay the Immigration reform plan. And we know why.

Again, no enforcement mechanisms outlined in specifics in the Bill against illegal aliens from receiving their health care subsidies. Which is why you don't see a very specific wording "No Federal funding on health care for illegal aliens" in the bill because the key with this Bill is to help Immigration Reform and that would turn illegal aliens into "legal" aliens. That's 40 million more to the health care roll. Which will add to the deficit even more than you ever imagine. And it'd be bogus to say that it won't add to the deficit. It will. Big time. Anybody who says otherwise is being hypocritically dishonest. We don't have the money in the first place.
 
jillio said:
So, now you are back to the old "polls don't count" argument because this one doesn't support your claims?:laugh2:
Click to expand...

Where did I say that? I just simply noted the sample polling disparity. If you want to count that 69%, then fine if it makes you feel better.
 
Respect

It is all about respect. Imagine you are a soldier in Iraq. You have seen buddies blown apart by roadside bombs. You signed up for a second tour, because you believed it was the right thing to do. You put your life on the line, knowing that in a second, your child loses his or her father. You did it anyway.

You never were old enough to really care about Democrats or Republicans. You just knew that United States means freedom. You believe in fighting for that freedom, in a desert, thousands of miles from home.

When you first began to fight, GW Bush was your Commander in Chief. You had immense respect for him. Your respect never dimmed, in spite of polls, news articles, or conversations with family back home. He was the leader of the United States; Commander in Chief!

Now, as your second tour draws to a close, you realize it is time to rejoin your family. You have been away for nearly 5 years. Your child is beginning school. You read reports of people keeping their children from hearing a "Stay in School" message from the new President. You hear a lot of angry comments about Liberals and Healthcare and deficits. What you also hear is dis-respect for the leader of the United States. You feel your blood boil. Who are these citizens, and what have they done to contribute to our country? What right do they have to dis-respect the Commander in Chief? You have risked your future, given up years of parenthood, seen untold terror, lived without a good nights sleep in years. You see people sitting in a chair in front of a computer and insulting the Commander in Chief . You understand that people will have issues, that policies may not always favor you and your family, but that is not the issue. What gives them the right to dis-respect my leader?
 
kokonut said:
That's the idea. Immigration "Reform" is predicated on this health care Bill to pass first else it'll derail/delay the Immigration reform plan. And we know why.

Again, no enforcement mechanisms outlined in specifics in the Bill against illegal aliens from receiving their health care subsidies. Which is why you don't see a very specific wording "No Federal funding on health care for illegal aliens" in the bill because the key with this Bill is to help Immigration Reform and that would turn illegal aliens into "legal" aliens. That's 40 million more to the health care roll. Which will add to the deficit even more than you ever imagine. And it'd be bogus to say that it won't add to the deficit. It will. Big time. Anybody who says otherwise is being hypocritically dishonest. We don't have the money in the first place.
Click to expand...

Again, FALSE.
 
kokonut said:
Where did I say that? I just simply noted the sample polling disparity. If you want to count that 69%, then fine if it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

And you claim to have a research background!:D There is a population you aren't accounting for, koko. You only included 63% of those polled. The total number of pollsters must equal 100%.:lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top