Biden helps spread the fear
Sen. Joe Biden said recently that he could more-or-less guarantee that Obama will be “tested” with an international “crisis” during his first six months in office.
What an irresponsible comment.
For the last week and a half the McCain campaign has bought into the ring-wing talk show host agenda and preached a need to fear the associations Obama has made with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers. They have suggested we need to question his judgment in praying and working with these individuals. Heck, the Republicans have even brought back a fear of Democratic socialism because it’s apparently the same thing as socialism.
And Biden had to go and make things worse.
Can Biden step down and offer his VP candidacy to Powell, yet? Or perhaps that suggestion is “all about race.”
Obama told Joe the Plumber that the nation needed to “spread the wealth” around. By definition, socialist economics includes the “redistribution of wealth, typically by progressive taxation of high earners.”
In what fantasy world is Obama’s policy not Socialist?
The top 10 percent of earners in this country already pay 60 percent of the tax burden, while the bottom 50 percent pay about three percent. Obviously, this is nowhere near good enough for Obama, who believes we are not yet spreading the wealth around.
He also has plans to increase spending by obscene amounts, most of which will presumably come from “the richest one percent of Americans” (read as job creators) as well. McCain isn’t a whole heck of a lot better, to be fair.
Right now the country has two examples of Socialist economics; Social Security and Medicare. Both are essentially bankrupt failures.
David Walker, the nation’s “top accountant” says we are spending ourselves into a looming national catastrophe and NO ONE disagrees:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS2fI2p9iVs
The left will have all three branches of government and will use it to dramatically increase spending and social programs. If anything that will step up the date of catastrophe from the current 2040.
And, according to the Laffer Curve, the higher the tax rate, the lower the revenue, which will require more and more tax hikes to fund government until there is nothing left to tax. Meanwhile, who will be left with a drive to be successful if more and more of that hard-earned money will be stolen by the government and given to someone who couldn’t be bothered?
The bottom line is that, at a time when the federal government needs to be dramatically reducing spending, it is increasing spending at an exponential rate, with few to no true conservatives to stop it. Our emotional need to “take care” of the less fortunate is insuring we won’t have the means to take care of anything within 30 years. Nationalized health care? Forget it. Nothing will bankrupt the nation faster. And it will take with it the high quality physicians and specialists, who, without those salaries, will no longer have any reason to spend all that time in school becoming doctors for the financial success that comes with it.
Both parties are responsible, neither will address it. The best we can hope for from Republicans is to slow the pace long enough to realize the graveness of the problem before it’s too late. Democrats have no restraint whatsoever.
You want issues? There you go. You can blame Republicans all you want for “spreading fear” about Obama’s policies, but that fear is very real and very immediate. Yours, and especially your childrens’ very future is at stake.
A socialist nation? Try a third world nation; bankrupt with no prospects.
You think the media spends too much time on gaffes and gotcha? You’re damn right they do. But they certainly don’t want to talk about any of the things I just mentioned either. The media largely supports every tax hike, every social program, and every spending initiative that comes down the pike. ECM’s own editorial board supported the $6.6 billion transportation hike and supports the upcoming arts/outdoors ballot initiative.
No one is supporting a massive reduction in spending, because to do so gets you branded a racist or bigot (welfare spending), or greedy, or a mindless tool for the rich.
The framers never intended this. The Great Experiment is on a crash course with failure and it comes from within. There is no bigger story and it is all but completely ignored by the one institution tasked with watching government.
I will not be one to dispute Obama’s positions as those of a DEMOCRATIC socialist… and there is a huge difference in definitions as to how Americans understand socialism.
I, for one, believe we need to nationalize (socialize) health care. I have talked with several friends who live in Europe, Canada and one who lives in Australia that do not understand the fear that has been spread over the idea of an America with universal health care. I explain to them that the fear comes from our country not being in a transitional period, and perhaps financially incapable of making the transition to such a system. They say that their governments (democracies mind you, these aren’t socialist or communist nations, although some are democratic socialists) INVESTED in the health care system and now it saves them money. Our government funds less than 30 percent of our nations health care. My friend in Australia says their government pays for 2/3 of their health care, and it saves everyone a ton of money.
I’m not pretending to be an economist or someone who knows all the ins and outs of the system, but we are the only wealthy country in the world without a universal health care system.
Something is wrong there.
But that’s a whole new topic we will tackle head on, with Hillary Clinton leading, when Obama is elected president.
It’s not fear Matt, its common sense. Your argument boils down to “those countries are wealthy and they have it, why don’t we?” (I’m channeling my father asking his teenage son if he would jump off a bridge if everyone else did.)
What percentage of income do people in those countries pay in income tax? You seem to be under the impression that, since people don’t see a medical bill, they are getting something for free. I once sat down with a Canadian friend and tried to figure the percentage of income he paid in taxes. When you include income, sales (in the teens in most places), and countless other taxes, the tax rate for the average family hovers around 50 percent. 50 percent! God help you if you are wealthy.
Part of the way Canada keeps costs down is by implementing price controls on drugs. Were America (the last free market for pharmecuticals) to do this, the money needed to fund R&D and produce the next round of miracle drugs disappears. According to the Fraser Institute in Canada, the average wait for cancer treatment is 17 weeks. Just to see a specialist on a referral is eight weeks plus. If Canadians want to get out of the national system and get a private carrier they have to break the law. There’s no doctor shopping either. If you have a major health issue you will not be allowed to find a doctor best suited to your needs. You take what the government gives you.
Meanwhile, the country is suffering from a shortage of doctors. Sounds like a great system.
In the USA, government is largely responsible for the increases to health care costs. Mandate after mandate has been handed down to carriers that then fall on the backs of payers who are stuck paying for stuff they will never use (mental health care, addiction treatment, etc.). An out of control legal system makes insurance for doctors so prohibitive many are leaving practice because they can’t afford the bill. Medicare only pays about 30 percent of total cost, and because hospitals and clinics can’t shoulder the remaining burden and stay in business, the 70 percent unpaid falls on those with private insurance carriers.
Go ask your local hospital administrator about Medicare. He/she will tell you it is bankrupting the system. As taxpayers we pay twice for Medicare: Once in direct taxes, and again on our insurance bills to subsidize the program. And it’s still failing!
It isn’t a LACK of government in health care that is the problem, it is its meddling that is the problem. Until we get government out of it, end the absolutely stupid practice of employer paid bills, and put health care insurance back in the private market with some common sense restrictions on lawsuits, it will continue to rise.
It always baffles me that people think the same government who brought us Katrina, the housing crisis, Social Security bankruptcy, and a thousand other glaring debacles is somehow the answer to health care. Any service that can be provided privately will be provided by government at twice the price (gotta feed the bureaucracy you know) with far less effectiveness.
At the beginning of your comment you say:
I will not be one to dispute Obama’s positions as those of a DEMOCRATIC socialist…
Then why are you accusing Republicans of fear mongering the issue? The only difference between Socialism and Democratic Socialism is the illusion you have some control over it through the ballot box. I guess that illusion would remain as long as voters supported the system. Then what? What happens when voters decide to go away from it? That is generally when Democratic Socialism becomes Socialism. You’re playing a semantic game, as though because something has the word “democratic” in front of it it is somehow noble.
I don’t understand why so many are so bent on turning us into a Socialist nation. We are not, and have never been, and the nation was set up to avoid it all costs. We aren’t the richest nation in the world for nothing, you know. If people want Socialism (Democratic or otherwise) there is no shortage of places they can go to get it. Of course, you may have trouble getting in as many of those countries strictly limit immigrants because they simply can’t afford to support them.
Then you have to get a job. In Democratic Socialist nations like Germany or France that might be tough. They have unemployment rates around 8. And that is the best it has been in over a decade, when the average has been about 10. Then you will pay about 50 percent of your income in income taxes (doesn’t include other taxes).
Sounds awesome.
To suggest that the only difference between DEMOCRATIC socialism and and true, full on socialism is an “illusion” is again preying on fear. Socialism seeks to invest in a full redistribution of wealth while DEMOCRATIC socialism is selective and limited. The one thing DEMOCRATIC socialism invests fully in is the idea of taxes funding welfare programs. People have a right to health care, and they should not be turned down because insurance costs too much or certain illnesses are not covered. To constantly cite chemotherapy treatment as a downfall of Canada’s socialized health care system is to ignore the basic needs treatment it offers to every citizen. We all certainly hope that the flaws of socialized medicine can be eliminated and the system perfected, but we must decide what system provides the best care for the best price. Many Americans, including myself, believe that we pay taxes for a reason, and that reason should be for our government to assure and insure our health, safety and well-being.
Oh, and for the record, I’m a realist and understand the necessity and importance of taxes. I would love to see the billions and billions of dollars we spend on unnecessary wars (understand that the War in Iraq was not fought to protect our freedom) go towards making sure all Americans are guaranteed health care. If we don’t guarantee that than we are admitting defeat. We shouldn’t leave this issue until we have won. I might be stealing that line though.
Can you please show me where in the Constitution it says government is tasked with providing us “health, safety and well-being?”
Please also show where in the bill of rights is the “right to health care.”
If you want to rewrite the Constitution and the Bill of Rights be my guest and try to sell that to the nation.
You want a guarantee from government that “everything is going to be alright.” That is simply not the government’s job. On the other hand, protecting American citizens from enemies foreign and domestic absolutely is in the Constitution. In fact, it is job number one of the federal government.
I guess we’ll have to leave those pesky, meaningless economic meltdown questions, and how national health care will exacerbate the problem for another time (or government’s role in the health care “crisis” for that matter). What we want government to do, after all, is so much more important that what it can do, or is supposed to do, or can sustain.
At this point, perhaps a more relevant discussion would be why we are graduating so many students from high school and even college without a basic understanding of American civics. What we want seems so much more important these days than what we need to do to preserve what is, after all, the greatest system of government ever devised.
Fortunately, for the future of our country, we are currently graduating students from college who have a grip on reality and understand that we did not wage a War in Iraq in order to “protect American citizens from enemies foreign and domestic.” We understand that health care SHOULD and CAN be a right. We understand that those who framed the constitution did not have the battle of cancer, AIDS or health insurance companies holding citizens hostage. There is a reason that Obama is receiving overwhelming support from us college graduates without a basic understanding of American Civics. It’s probably because we aren’t smart. We probably aren’t smart because a college education is not a right in this country. They should have been thinking about that when they wrote the constitution. Darn.
Sooo…College students today know far better how to design a Republic than the forefathers? Wow, they must be really smart.
For starters, I had no idea that cancer or other diseases didn’t exist in the 1700s. No wonder they didn’t need health insurance. Republicans didn’t invent cancer until a century later…or something.
Might want to check the facts on that “overwhelming support” theory. According to the IBD/TIPP poll, the 18-24 set is in McCain’s camp by 10 points:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/Polls.aspx?id=309546869309178
You are right about one thing though: There is a reason Obama has support from people without a basic understanding of (or respect for) civics. If you don’t understand that there are highly valuable things worth preserving for the sake of future generations, than you really don’t care when those things disappear. It is the selfishness of the modern American that we are willing to throw away the very things that made this country great, in order we gratify ourselves now. I fear how future generations will regard us when they realize we cashed it in for a little momentary well-being.
For the record I never said anyone was “not smart.” Only that we don’t teach proper civics in this country anymore. We’ve replaced it with diversity training and conflict resolution. But there can be little doubt the product ain’t what it used to be:
“Over the past decade, literacy among college graduates has actually declined. … According to the most recent National Assessment of Adult Literacy, for instance, the percentage of college graduates deemed proficient in prose literacy has actually declined from 40 to 31 percent in the past decade. … Employers report repeatedly that many new graduates they hire are not prepared to work, lacking the critical thinking, writing and problem-solving skills needed in today’s workplaces.”
http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i34/34b01701.htm
But hey, at least they got that whole Iraq thing figured out from the safe confines of (an eroding) academia. That’s a relief.
BTW…I’ll take the fact that you could not provide the Constitutional dictum of “health, safety and well-being” nor the article in the Bill of Rights providing for the right to health care, to mean you were unable to find them.
I wonder who was more shocked. You or me.
It doesn’t surprise me that you find an argument against health care being a right everyone deserves or an argument that cites how a college education is not a good thing. HAHA. We will have to agree to disagree, yet again. I will look forward to an Obama presidency and a universal health care system, and, apparently, you will not.
Nor am I surprised you could not find arguments to back up your assertions.
Yes, we will have to disagree. But I’ll at least have the serenity that accompanies arguing a position I can actually back up.
You appear to be doing what any good NFL coach would do on fourth and long: punt. Thanks anyway though. As always, it has been enlightening.
For the record: I never said a college education was a bad thing. I said the quality of that education has been in decline for a decade or better, and provided the statistics to prove it. Indeed, higher education appears to be one of those “Democratic” Socialist programs we continue to throw more and more money at that is in decline anyway.
You are ALWAYS going to believe your opinion is better than someone else’s, PT. I have backed up my argument for universal health care, you just don’t like income tax (my point is very short, simply and sweet. It is also accurate). So again, we will have to agree to disagree with the idea that higher education funding is not doing it’s job. We obviously disagree on the need to guarantee all Americans the right of a college education.
Not better. Just supported. You haven’t backed up anything, but merely expressed your desire to have universal health care. Great. I respect that. But you haven’t shown me any data that an American model would be superior or cheaper than the current system, nor have you shown me any evidence the economy could sustain it given the dark future we are in for if we don’t stop this catastrophic spending spree.
You just want it, because you believe it should be a right. That’s an emotional argument, not a reasoned one.
You have no idea how I feel about taxes so I’m not sure how you could be “accurate.” I too understand the necessity of taxation, but we as a nation have taken it well beyond what the tax base can maintain and are going further. Don’t you care about your fellow Americans Matt? Or do you just think it isn’t their money in the first place and government can take it at will for whatever Matt deems we “need?”
With education, you can say it is “doing its job” all you want, but where is your evidence of that? I showed you clear evidence that the system is in decline. Do you have an answer for that, other than “you’re wrong?” Because I’m not interested in your opinion since I don’t give it much weight anyway. Do you have facts? You’re a reporter for cripes sake, do some research.
If you can show me a “right to a college education” in the Bill of Rights, by all means, let’s see it. Otherwise, you are just making it up as you go along, in the world according to Matt.
I don’t care about the world according to Matt, because I am not convinced you bring much to the table. You are merely an expert in your own mind. This nation has been around for almost 250 years and has been very successful. I find it the pinnacle of ego that you believe you know better all of a sudden. Why? What credentials do you bring to the table that give you even a shred of credibility? Why should I take your word over some of the top economists in the nation? Why is it you know better than institutions whose reason for existence is to study these things?
Throw me a bone, man. You don’t really think for one second that I’m prepared to throw away hundreds of years of tradition and success because you feel there’s a better way, do you?
That’s just absurd.
Mr. Tepoorten, maybe you can tell me something I’ve wondered about during the length of this discussion and a few others. What’s your educational background? Where did you attend college and where did you attend elementary and secondary education?
I graduated from the University of Minnesota. Twenty years now since I roamed the campus, and I’m certain — based on many hundreds of first-hand incidents, dozens of reports annually and just a wee bit more overall DATA than your, um, MARTY NEMKO provides — I’m certain that today’s grads from the U are as strong as ever.
My kids attend public school in a district that is apparently WAY WAY better than the one in your corner of the world, or at least the corner you imagine. They’re learning at a level well above what I went through back in the 70′s, which wasn’t so shabby in itself, and their teachers, almost to a tee, are phenomenal.
So what’s your story? Public education? And if so, did they beat you or something? Because your contempt for any learning that doesn’t involve right wing indoctrination is palpable.
WOW! Matt must really be in trouble for big bro How to show up. What can I say? I’m honored.
By all means, let’s have that U of M data then. Personally, I have no idea how the U is doing (and don’t recall ever criticizing the education at the U) so it would be interesting to find out. I don’t doubt you, I’ve always thought the U was a fine institution and in fact am encouraging my daughter to attend in 2010. I just like to see these things for myself.
As for Marty Nemko, perhaps you should read past the by-line. As stated clearly in the article, one source is “Clifford Adelman, a former research analyst at the U.S. Department of Education and now a senior research associate at the Institute for Higher Education Policy.”
Here’s his bonafides:
http://www.ihep.org/press-room/experts-expertise.cfm?id=18
A PhD, imagine that.
The source noted for employer dissatisfaction is also clearly noted as the Spellings Report (compiled by Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education), which NPR seems to find very credible:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6146394
Here’s a thought: Why don’t you listen to the interview posted there.
I’m afraid I’m going to need more than your word that it is “right-wing indoctrination” palpable or no. Just to humor you though, I Googled “Spellings Report right wing indoctrination” just to see if perhaps you were on to something. Despite the overall societal sensitivity to all things wingnut, I was unable to find anyone but yourself making that claim.
Did you read the report Howie? You might be encouraged by what it prescribes: more and more spending! Those evil right-wing indoctrinators, always trying to fix stuff with more tax dollars.
The other half of your comment, I must say, I find a bit weird.
It seems to me you are asking me to present my educational resume in order to determine “fitness” for this discussion. I already presented my resume Howie, when I sought a position with ECM. I see no need to present it again and certainly not in this context.
Matt, in lieu of any supporting case whatsoever, has presented ONLY his own opinions as evidence that I am wrong (please note, that was very important). Therefore, it is perfectly fair to ask what he brings to the table that qualifies him as an expert. I didn’t ask him for his educational resume, but merely something, anything, I can hang my hat on that would make me comfortable taking his assertions on Socialism, education, health care, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the economy, at face value, since his expertise is all he offers.
Were he to begin presenting a case using qualified experts (assuming he isn’t one, and I’m prepared to be wrong) that would be perfectly acceptable as well.
On behalf of my argument in this thread I have presented evidence from respected economist David Walker; Adelman, a research analyst from the Department of education; the Fraser Institute of Canada; and Spelling, the Secretary of Education for the nation. (As I am nowhere as intelligent as Matt or yourself, I tend to rely on people who qualify as experts, as a rule.)
If you have a problem with the data or positions of others I have presented, by all means, I am open and willing to listen. It would be nice if somebody would offer something other than a gut feeling! Funny though, I don’t see anything listed in your comment, which seems far more interested in who I am than the expert evidence I have presented.
So really, my education is not the issue here. If you believe that all of this is right-wing indoctrination than your issue is with those whose expertise I relied upon. I am willing to accept it is all hooey compiled by a vast right-wing conspiracy if someone would just present even a shred of evidence that such is the case.
While I wait for that (and hopefully not too long), let me just add that I have great respect for education in all its forms, and have certainly never suggested any “contempt” for education anywhere on this blog that I can recall. (Again, if you have evidence to the contrary, let’s have it.) I’m just not as comfortable as you are being a cheerleader.
Perhaps this will make you feel better. Spellings suggests that the decline in employer satisfaction with college graduates has happened over the last decade. For eight of those years the nation has been overseen by a Republican in the executive branch. So, you see, it’s Bush’s fault!!!
There now, don’t you feel better?
2 Things…
1) We are in a stage where bitter, cling-to-your-religion-and-guns Americans (lol, that’s just funny to say) are getting upset that Sarah Palin and her Republican Party (the Republicans abandoned McCain a two weeks ago when they started allowing Fox News’ new opinion team to run their campaign) have failed to convince Americans that rural America is where “all the real good people are.” So now, all those backers, are attacking every progressive idea the democrats are making. PT, I never pretended to be an expert but simply proposed examples of friends of mine who live in REAL LIFE situations in countries that are supported by a friendly government that helps them achieve. I simple note that those friends are amongst the majority of their country’s citizens in believing that their government is a good thing, not an evil power-hungry entity. You like to pull right-wing faux-facts from sonservative-based Web sites to argue the majority of your points. It’s kind of like someone saying they get their news from Fox News but then they cite Hannity as a news provider. It’s a joke.
And let’s not forget…
2) We have yet to see a factual Update on Pt’s blog titled “Have you seen our marbles?” in which he jumps to report how an alleged group of lefties carved a “B” into a McCain campaign volunteer’s face. In fact, it was proved to be a hoax by the authorities. We have not seen an update/retraction and every reputable news source who initially reported on this has since hammered home the point that it was not true. Instead, we get two irrelevant “updates” on PTs blog that fail to address the facts. Interesting that such a blogger would be professing fact-based reporting on my opinion page when he is incapable factual freedom.
I’ve since noticed the blog is updated. PT rightly believes they should “throw the book” at the ‘B-face lady.’ It might be deserving though to admit that Malkin, I know you can’t stand her, was right. Also, in my opinion, there is no element of racism in this incident. Instead, it only point out how moronic/insane/delusional human beings get when they fail to have a mind of their own and blindly support party platforms. This goes for both sides, the Dems and the Repubs are guilty of complete acts of supidity in support of their party’s cause. In fact, it would be great if PT could update his blog with examples of how crazy democratic supports have been this political season.
As for me, I kick dirt on the party lines.
Actually Matt, the blog was updated long before your “2 things” comment. As well, the possibility that the attack was a hoax was presented in the original post:
“It’s getting I don’t even recognize this country half the time anymore. Whether this really happened, or is some kind of twisted hoax, we have, collectively, lost our marbles.”
In “2 things” you say:
“Interesting that such a blogger would be professing fact-based reporting on my opinion page when he is incapable factual freedom.”
Yes, that is interesting.
Also, you say:
“You like to pull right-wing faux-facts from sonservative-based Web sites to argue the majority of your points.”
By all means, show which of my “faux-facts” came from conservative-based websites. Please. I await your complete destruction of my position based on that premise.
Oh, one more thing. You say:
“I simple note that those friends are amongst the majority of their country’s citizens in believing that their government is a good thing, not an evil power-hungry entity.”
So, you’re argument is that nationalized health care would be a “good thing” that would help people. Can you back that up? Because what I have been arguing is that it won’t. That, in fact, nationalized health care will end up being more expensive (requiring more of people’s hard-earned money) and less effective (see argument above).
In fact, I fail to see how government helps people in general. Social Security? Bankrupt. Medicare? Bankrupt. Low income home loans? Bankrupt. Now all of these things will require far more financial support than originally suggested, and result in far less benefit than intended. So we’re taking more and more of people’s own money for less and less benefit. How is that a good thing again? Nationalized health care will be great until the bills start outweighing the funding (a virtual guarantee). Then people’s health care, prescriptions, etc… will be rationed, lowering the quality of the care even as people are expected to pay more to support it.
Since you haven’t been paying attention (apparently) this is what I have been saying since this faux-debate began. You have shown me absolutely nothing that shows this is wrong. So you’re basic premise, that government can help people, is flawed (or, at least without a shred of support). Like Howie, you prefer simply attacking me to arguing your own premise.
60 minutes, The Dept. of Ed., NPR. These are my sources. I’m starting to wonder if you even recognize the difference between real data or a right-wing blog. The criteria you and Howie seem to use is: “if it doesn’t agree with me it must be right-wing propaganda.”
That reflects far more poorly on you than it does on me.
Damning evidence…
PT wanted specific examples of how he makes love to right-ring faux-facts… and look no further than his comment in this post when he cites a poll conducted by Investor’s Business Daily. He tries to use this poll to suggest McCain has a 10-point lead with expected voters ages 18-24. How could be not trust Investors.com, because they are partenered with TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics (TIPPOnline.com)!?!?!? And how can we not trust the reputable TIPPOnline.com because they are partnered with The Christian Science Monitor. And if those credientials don’t make you realize the faux-facts PT is spewing around then perhaps you can simply take a look at ALL OF THE OTHER POLLS which show Obama with an overwhelming lead in the 18-24 category. Harvard’s poll (omg, they are really smart but they are also probably biased for one of their own) shows Obama leading in that category 56% to 30%… a 26-point lead! And then you have the OPINION journalists on CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS who all are saying that the youth vote dramtically favors Obama. Even the pollsters themselves have admitted that polls conducted by groups like IBD/TIPP do not take into consideration the expectation, assumption and opinion (oh, it’s so scary to think it’s based on opinion) that the youth vote will be at a record high this year.
So, you know, I guess we will have to come back next week, after the election where race and age are the deciding factors (oh my gosh, opinion again) and see who won the youth vote. According to PT’s best buddy IBD/TIPP, that will be McCain by 10 points.
“I don’t care about the world according to Matt, because I am not convinced you bring much to the table.” -Patrick Tepoorten
You’re right, this reflects far more poorly on me than it does you.
Can you do me a favor Pat, and answer us all a few questions on the world according to you. Because it seems that you are under the impression that you base your opinion on fact, and apparently that makes everyone else’s opinion baseless, I want your opinion on some very simple questions. We’ve already established that you do not believe health care is a right because it was not written into the constitution. We also understand you don’t believe higher education is a right, and you also feel it hasn’t been successful in educating our society (must be why the majority of college educated voters prefer Obama).
So answer these…
1) Do you believe global warming is fact or fiction?
2) Do you believe gays should be allowed to marry?
3) Do you believe abortion is an issue that should be left to the mother and her doctor?
4) Do you believe our health care system is in need of repair?
Note that some of these questions you can reason with fact and others are answered only with emotion-based opinions. No one persons answer opinion on these issues is taken as scripture (haha), it is simply the opinion of the individual. It doesn’t make them a better person or a worse person if they answer one way or the other.
So let me end by going back to emphasizing PT’s quote…
“I don’t care about the world according to Matt, because I am not convinced you bring much to the table.” -Patrick Tepoorten
And I ask everyone these questions…
Do believe this election cycle has turned highlighted how Americans are incapable of civil debate?
Do you believe that your opinion as a voter has been trampled on by the other side of the argument?
Do you believe the party line politics on display are good for our country?
You really ought to get out of your little bubble more often Matt. I mean really, do you have to work hard to be this obtuse, or does it come naturally? Just for the record, since you can’t be bothered, the IBD/TIPP poll was the most accurate presidential poll of 2004:
http://www.tipponline.com/accurate.html
I place a high premium on accuracy. Apparently you place a higher premium on…something else. By all means, trust those easily digested left-wing talking points at your own peril.
As to the rest of your comment, I don’t see what any of it has to do with the topic at hand. It seems clear now that you will do anything to avoid making any kind of reality-based case in favor of your position. I can only wonder at this point if it is because you choose not to…or because you can’t.
It looks as though my effort to understand the mind-set that says government is the best way to help people will have to wait for another day, or someone who has actually thought it through.
Thanks for playing though.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh….that bantering back and forth was all just a game…????????
Yeah… that’s certainly not the first time PT has said “Thanks for playing.” It really doesn’t mean anything, just suggests that he thinks he won something. I guess we will see if he won Nov. 5, when they release the voting figures for the 18-24 demographic. If McCain wins that category by 10 points than he won. If not, well, I don’t even need to go there. HAHA.
Didn’t win anything Matt, just didn’t get any closer to understanding people who want to rewrite the Constitution.
As for IBD/TIPP, I made no prediction regarding the youth vote or the presidential race, just linked to a poll. In fact, that poll has now swung the other way on the youth vote, showing it in Obama’s camp by a significant margin.
Of course, that can’t be right. The poll is biased.
PT is backing away from his faux-fact about McCain winning the youth vote!?!? Does this mean he is no longer thanking me for playing? Also in the fairness of disclosure, please note that PT is the (or one of the) individuals who approves comments on ECM blogs, which is the reason he so readily responds with faux-facts like the IBD/TIPP poll link as evidence that McCain is projected to win the youth vote by 10 points. In fact, PT used that link to suggest I was wrong about the youth vote and continued after by saying “you are right about one thing though…” We shouldn’t rewrite the constitution though, PT is right. I mean who in their right mind agreed to rewrite the constitution to include the 19th amendment, must have been those “health of the mother” people. HAHA.
In conclusion (though I’m sure PT will continue to argue), PT suggested that I needed to “check the facts” on Obama winning the 18-24 vote by an “overwhelming” margin. PT then used the IBD/TIFF poll which gave McCain a 10-point advantage in that category as evidence that I was wrong. So, I concede the point, and agree we should “check the facts” on Nov. 5. It is then that I predict Obama will overwhelmingly (Matt’s definition is 15 points) win the the youth vote.
“please note that PT is the (or one of the) individuals who approves comments on ECM blogs, which is the reason he so readily responds with faux-facts like the IBD/TIPP poll link as evidence that McCain is projected to win the youth vote by 10 points.”
So now I’m being criticized for providing timely responses? Well, okay than. Just so we’re clear, Matt is perfectly okay to approve his own comments. If he doesn’t know how, he should just give me a call. If he knows how, then only heaven (sorry Matt) knows why I have to waste my precious time doing it. In the future, provided he understands the process, he should just go ahead and load his own comments. Not only will this save me time, it will reduce the possibility of a timely response from me. Apparently Matt isn’t getting enough time for people to soak in the pure glory of his comment nuggets. If he is amenable, perhaps he could suggest a “time alloted” for his comments to remain unchallenged before I post?
For the record, here’s what I have said: On the date of my comment linking the TIPP McCain was ahead in the youth vote by roughly ten points. The TIPP poll was the most accurate poll in the 2004 election. Now, the TIPP poll shows Obama leading in the youth vote.
That’s it. I have made no predictions about Nov. 5, or who will win the election or by what margin. I simply stated a fact as it was the day I posted based on a poll with a history of accuracy.
Apparently this is a crime for which I should be hoisted up by my bootstraps. So, I’ll ask Matt this:
Do you dispute that the TIPP poll had the youth vote for McCain when I posted the link?
Do you dispute that the TIPP poll was the most accurate, in retrospect, in the 2004 election?
So you dispute that the TIPP poll now shows the youth vote in Obama’s camp?
If so, let’s hear it. If not, what are we talking about?
Even the people who believe in polling accuracy “discredit” the IBD poll for its “internals,” specifically its results for the 18-24 category. But, PT cites IBD’s 18-24 numbers for his facts. These “facts” are what I ever-so-politely refer to as “faux-facts.” Can anyone tell me what the score of the game is? PT said implied that it’s over, and thanked me for playing, but that would mean he is playing beyond the whistle.