More doublespeak and outrage from UHC opposition

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: wetech

404 - GOP not found.

OP's source is the Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal.

404 error not found.

it's a news article about hospitals and insurance companie complaining about changes to the bill, not an opinion piece.

If the same article appeared in the NYT, would you be saying that Democrats are complaining about the bill?

Oh, please. The WSJ stock in trade is to present concurring opinion as "news". It's a ploy to provide the kind of plausible deniability you embrace.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Obama and Congress could have funded a comprehensive study done by health care professionals, consumer advocates, and financial experts in advance of trying to legislate a program. Making it public and taking it out of partisan politics would have given us an accurate assesment of our situation and provided answers with patient care, provider needs, and fiscal responsibility at the forefront instead of political glory and gain. What do we have? Some plan that the partisans don't want us to see because we aren't as smart as they are.

Of the two, which sounds like it has the best interests of the citizen in mind?

obama kept defering to congress on everything, not a good idea

Hillary's plan did not work when it came from the administration - so he figures let Congress come up with something and he can then take the credit.

If it fails, it will be much later and he will not have to pickup the pieces, nor will the current Congress.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

...

Obama has said he won?t sign a health-care bill if it is projected to add to the federal budget deficit. In the poll, 71 percent said they expect any measure that emerges from Congress would increase the deficit, while 19 percent said they believe it wouldn?t.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated yesterday that the Senate Finance Committee?s version of health- care legislation would reduce the deficit by $81 billion over 10 years.

Instead of the government picking up the tab; they want the working class to pick up the tab even more.

It is still a tax on the working class, no matter where the cost comes from.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: wetech

404 - GOP not found.

OP's source is the Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal.

404 error not found.

it's a news article about hospitals and insurance companie complaining about changes to the bill, not an opinion piece.

If the same article appeared in the NYT, would you be saying that Democrats are complaining about the bill?

No. By definition, ANYTHING that appears in ANY media outlet owned by Rupert Murdoch is an opinion piece. His entire domain is a fact free zone.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Instead of the government picking up the tab; they want the working class to pick up the tab even more.

It is still a tax on the working class, no matter where the cost comes from.

You should watch this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A&fmt=18

Its eye opening to be sure.

edit*unless of course you don't want your eyes opened

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: wetech

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: wetech

404 - GOP not found.

OP's source is the Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal.

404 error not found.

it's a news article about hospitals and insurance companie complaining about changes to the bill, not an opinion piece.

If the same article appeared in the NYT, would you be saying that Democrats are complaining about the bill?

No. By definition, ANYTHING that appears in ANY media outlet owned by Rupert Murdoch is an opinion piece. His entire domain is a fact free zone.

You could say the same about any news/media outlet. You just happen to disagree with Rupert Murdoch or anyone that works for him.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Harvey

No. By definition, ANYTHING that appears in ANY media outlet owned by Rupert Murdoch is an opinion piece. His entire domain is a fact free zone.

You could say the same about any news/media outlet. You just happen to disagree with Rupert Murdoch or anyone that works for him.

YOU could say it. I couldn't because it would be a lie. I don't care that Rupert operates opinion outlets. I care that he operates outlets that masquerade as news sources while pimping his bigoted, hate filled, fact free right wingnut agenda.

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Harvey

No. By definition, ANYTHING that appears in ANY media outlet owned by Rupert Murdoch is an opinion piece. His entire domain is a fact free zone.

You could say the same about any news/media outlet. You just happen to disagree with Rupert Murdoch or anyone that works for him.

YOU could say it. I couldn't because it would be a lie. I don't care that Rupert operates opinion outlets. I care that he operates outlets that masquerade as news sources while pimping his bigoted, hate filled, fact free right wingnut agenda.

How is that any different than any other news/media outlet? Like I said you can say the same thing about the others, just switch around what they're trying to pimp.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: Harvey

No. By definition, ANYTHING that appears in ANY media outlet owned by Rupert Murdoch is an opinion piece. His entire domain is a fact free zone.

You could say the same about any news/media outlet. You just happen to disagree with Rupert Murdoch or anyone that works for him.

YOU could say it. I couldn't because it would be a lie. I don't care that Rupert operates opinion outlets. I care that he operates outlets that masquerade as news sources while pimping his bigoted, hate filled, fact free right wingnut agenda.

How is that any different than any other news/media outlet? Like I said you can say the same thing about the others, just switch around what they're trying to pimp.

It's different because you'd have to prove you assertion that "any" media outlet that labels themself a "news" organization is other than that and does not conform to accepted standards of journalism. Proving that about Faux is easy, and we've done it many times.

You made the assertion about "any" news organization. Prove it.