Quote: JohnnyQAnd now back to the debate, at least
partially.....
When I am asked to moderate, I will
only do it on the condition that the
microphones get turned off at the
end of 2 minutes !
And yes, I'm looking at YOU Mr.
Romney.
So you didn't see BOTH of the going over the time limit or interrupting each other? Candy Crowley turning herself into an idiot by siding with the President? Michelle clapping in spite of the rules against it?
I agree. Turn the mike off at the time limit. I just don't agree that you need to look at Mr. Romney.
Or was he just supposed to let the President run him over?
Quote: thecesspitFREE AT THE POINT OF USE.!
So the doctors who help you, the nurse who
helps you, the facility they're in, is not paid
for by anybody? Its all donated time and
resources?
Is that the story you're sticking with?
Quote: EvenBobSo the doctors who help you, the nurse who
helps you, the facility they're in, is not paid
for by anybody? Its all donated time and
resources?
Is that the story you're sticking with?
If you don't know what "free at the point of use" means, Bob, you can always ask.
I won't tell you, as helping you out with facts is normally thrown back in someone's face, but someone else might.
You can continue this ridiculous line of argument if you wish. You and your dog will probably get plenty of edification out of it, else you wouldn't be writing it.
Quote: thecesspitIf you don't know what "free at the point of use" means, Bob, you can always ask.
Its exactly as I thought. Its not free at all, you already
paid for it with taxes. Something you paid for already
isn't 'free' when you go to use it. Calling it free is an
insult to the populace. We don't call our schools or
roads or police 'free', we pay for them with our taxes.
Free at point of use is a lie. Just because you're not
paying more at point of use, that doesn't make
it free.
If you like you can call it "free at the point of use, paid through via taxation", if it makes you happier, but most people understand basic concepts of fiscal policy without having to act like a dullard to get their point across.
Quote: thecesspitNo, it's not a lie. It means no more and no less than what it says.
If its not free, why even use the word? Because they
want people to believe its free! I hear it all the time,
Obama is giving us free health care. No, he's not.
You even put it in caps: FREE AT THE POINT OF USE!
Like 'hooray, its free healthcare!.' And whats with the
'point of use' nonsense? Where else can you get it but
at the point of use?
You already paid for it, at no point in the process
is it free.
Quote: EvenBobIf its not free, why even use the word? Because they
want people to believe its free! I hear it all the time,
Obama is giving us free health care. No, he's not..
Sure, you hear the U.S. military here gives free healthcare to troops.
If you think there's a problem with that terminolgy, contact your representative.
I know, just think how much better off we all would have been had the British put Stephen Hawking to death instead of extending his miserable life.Quote: KeyserWhy on earth would anyone want British healthcare ??? They are a great example of how not to do it.
Quote: thecesspitNo, it's not a lie. It means no more and no less than what it says.
It should say 'No charges at point of use.' Because
you've already paid for it.
Quote: EvenBobIt should say 'No charges at point of use.' Because
you've already paid for it.
Well UNFORTUNATELY, it does turn out to "free" for
the people who get seriously ill and either can't
afford or CHOOSE not to have health insurance.
- But of course that doesn't mean that someone
doesn't have to pay for it (those of us who pay
taxes, duh).
Which is why I am in favor of the AFFORDABLE
HEALTH CARE ACT.
I am dissappointed that the DEMS haven't made
this point more clearly.
Quote: JohnnyQ
I am dissappointed that the DEMS haven't made
this point more clearly.
LOL! They can't! The CBO says its already going to
cost THREE TIMES more than they said it would cost
in 2009. And it hasn't even started yet. They dare
not open that can of worms. Even if it got implemented,
so many states would opt out of it because they can't
afford it, that it would be huge mess.
"CNN has sent out talking points to its staff, directing them to say that Candy Crowley was merely 'stating a point of fact' about the Libya 'terror' row and insisting that Barack Obama only got more time than Mitt Romney because he speaks slowly."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219402/Candy-Crowley-CNN-chief-praises-moderator-superb-job-Obama-Romney.html#ixzz29k4nm0CG
Nothing like doubling down on the failure of the moderator to remain objective and keep herself out of the way. Even if she was RIGHT (which has been determined to be a big stretch at best) did she call either one of them out at any other point? NO. IT WASN'T HER JOB TO SORT OUT THE FACTS AND FICTION. The idea is let the candidates say what they say and then the fact checkers can go to town. Her job was just to keep things moving along.
More time because he speaks slowly? That's just a big old pile of crap. He may have gotten more time without her meaning for it to be that way, he may have taken more time when presented with it to respond, but he most certainly was not given more time because he talks more slowly.
If this doesn't show that CNN is staffed by a bunch of chuckleheads, I don't know what will convince anyone of that fact.