Again Eagle, why do you only cite sources that are biased. FN does not even pretend to be unbiased. It gives your argument no credibility if all you cite is biased sources, or a single source for that matter.

It is also interesting that you allegations once again resonate with the current R/R ads. You are either a mouthpiece or are easily turned into a sheep.

Yes, it is a campaign lie.


Off topic. But if you want to bring that up we'll need to talk about how Mitt managed to get hundreds of millions of dollars into IRAs. That is mathematically impossible without breaking the law during the period he did it. Again, off-topic.


We should be told what happened during F&F. But if that happens, it is highly likely that many people in Mexico and in Arizona will be killed. The Barack administration has never endangered people for political gain the way the previous administration did to Valerie Plame. But again, off topic.



What? This is just a bizarre issue to raise. There is no reason a president needs top give a solo press conference and few have unless they were running for re-election or selling a particular piece of legislation. Not doing such interviews is a GOOD thing.

Once again, you are just echoing someone's talking points. I guess they were fed to you at church yesterday by a pastor? If so, please realize that was illegal.

Really, how about some original thoughts.

Temper temper.



First of all I don't appreciate the implication that any person I'm associated with is doing something illegal. If you can prove this then that is fine. Otherwise please drop the accusatory, condescending tone. And no I didn’t hear any of what I listed from a pastor... It was mostly what I thought were interesting points in the interviews. Perhaps if you had actually clicked on the link you might realize that.

I guess you missed the post where I said I was going to post ideas that some might consider FUD to be dispelled. I didn't claim they were my original ideas. Lol. Maybe I should put them in quotes so you're not confused...

Eagle, I don't really feel like expending a lot of energy to dispel FUD unless you actually expel a similar amount of energy to either defend or refute it.

But keeping this thread on track, I've already addressed the $700B Medicare cut on an August 17 post in this thread (see Myth #3). Seriously, if all you're going to do is rehash stuff that's already been debunked, you're basically piling on FUD on for the sake of piling it on. Something that is wrong doesn't become more right via repetition. You're just proving my comment about people repeating the same stuff over and over without regarding what's already been posted. Either prove the fact of my post wrong or bring me something new. Don't waste my time.

Edit: oh, and did you read the CBO analysis linked in this thread? Or Ryan's Path to Prosperity in the National Debt thread?


Those details are in both those links. As you yourself said, you're just piling on FUD for the sake of debunking. You're apparently doing very little reading and analysis yourself.

Sticking just to the health care part, Wino, is it your contention that health care costs are rising BECAUSE the government is paying them? Because the data from Europe, which you claim to be familiar with, contradicts that. Their health care costs are lower.

If you are unhappy that Obamacare shifts the cost burden to the government which then will pay that burden through higher deficits that integrate into increasing national debt then perhaps we should discuss tax policy as it relates to that issue.

There is a total amount spent on health care each year in the United States. That amount is partly paid by the government, partly paid by individuals, and partly paid by businesses providing insurance to their employees. If the total remains the same then if the government pays a larger share then that is equivalent to a tax decrease for businesses and individuals. It could be corrected by increasing taxes to the required level to put restore the cost burden distribution. That's a matter of tax policy.

We can reduce the total cost in several ways. We can regulate, ration, or we can try to make people healthier. Perhaps you have some other ideas.

But no one seems to be talking about how to reduce costs. The entire debate seems to be about how to distribute the costs. If there is no net change in costs then Obamacare is little more than a tax decrease for most Americans.

Yet you have yet to post one original argument that came from your brain. I can find everything you said as someone's talking points. You have also not cited a single credible source. FN is not credible because they have a bias and an agenda. I would say the same thing about a few liberal media sources. We get to compare Vintek's citing of the CBO, OMB and other credible, unbiased sources to you references to anecdotal opinions expressed on a single, biased news network. I hope you don't actually think that the comparison is even close.

NO BANKRUPTCY LOOMING
The Republicans also argue that the reform law will weaken Medicare and that by preventing the cuts and ultimately turning to vouchers they will enhance the program’s solvency. But Medicare is not in danger of going “bankrupt”; the issue is whether the trust fund that pays hospital bills will run out of money in 2024, as now projected, and require the program to live on the annual payroll tax revenues it receives.

The Affordable Care Act helped push back the insolvency date by eight years, so repealing the act would actually bring the trust fund closer to insolvency, perhaps in 2016.

Edit: added link.

And you want to dispel FUD by disseminating it. Okaaayyy...


Edit: took out an extraneous /quote tag.

Sorry, that's a bit of FUD as well. There's rules against intervening in a political campaign for 501c3 organizations...but a church does not have to be a 501c3 to be a non-profit (many don't know this, so I'm sure many churches are registered as a 501c3 even though it's not required at all). It's actually a bit of a grey area, as a church that's not registered as a 501c3 may still have to follow the same rules to keep their non-profit status. Regardless, there's multiple reasons why a pastor feeding someone these talking points is not illegal:

#1. So the church isn't a 501c3, but still subject to the same rules regarding non-profit status. Worst case scenario, they are found to have intervened in a political campaign, and the activities that constituted the violation are subject to an excise tax (ok, I may not understand this 100%...but basically they aren't breaking the law, but may have to pay a bit of a tax because of this).

#2. Churches (and any 501c3 organization) definitely ARE allowed to speak about the issues of the day. Per the ADF: "As long as one does not use explicit words expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate, one is free to praise or criticize officials and candidates — this is called issue advocacy." A church is even allowed to define moral positions and ask members to vote accordingly...they just can't come out and say "vote Romney 2012" without facing some kind of tax.

I thought I had a #3...but it's dinner time so I'm just gonna end the post here. In closing...as long as the church doesn't specifically tell you to vote for a certain candidate...no worries. And if they do, it's not illegal. Now, what MAY be illegal is if they intervene in a political campaign, are subject to whatever excise tax, and refuse to pay it. But that's an issue involving taxes, and not whether the pastor can tell someone to vote for a particular candidate.

Guys, let's stay on topic. The subject is the ACA and dispelling the FUD surrounding it, not the legalities of FUD. I would like to keep the thread from veering off into tangents.

I have no problem with a discussion about churches and the legalities surrounding their free speech rights, but I think it's fodder for another thread. I want this thread to stay focused because it was so difficult to follow any single subject on the original Obamacare thread. You had to wade through a lot of non-relevant posts to find what you were looking for. I'd like to keep that from happening here.

Thanks for the perspective and clarification josetann. I found it very informative.

You keep bashing FN for being biased. Yet I'd like to know which "credible" media sources out there do not have a bias or an agenda. Lol. Personally, I think it's the nature of the business.

I'll chime in, even though the question is addressed to DH. As mentioned, FoxNews is clearly biased toward the right. From what I've seen on CNBC, they're pretty much left-leaning. CNN pretty much seems to air all views and folks on both sides of the aisle agree to come on their shows, which would indicate that they don't think they'll be ambushed.

Anyway, bias isn't really the issue. What's at issue is whether or not that bias creates FUD based on inaccuracies, half-truths or outright lies. We've proven time and time again that this happens at Fox. We haven't seem anywhere near the same number of incidents with the other sources. MSNBC may be biased, but they generally get the facts right and usually present them in context. Every media source makes errors but at Fox, they seem to have thrown out their fact-checking department in order to make their points.

Personally, I don't bash Fox because it's biased; they have a right to have an editorial point of view. I don't like Fox because they distort the truth.

Edit: Okay Eagle, I've got a questions for you. Given how much has been disproven about what they air, why do you keep watching these jokers? Do you believe them? If you want the input of others, you need of offer some of your own. Fair enough?

Edit: changed CNBC to MSNBC. DH had that right in his reply below.

I generally agree with what Vintek is saying here. CNN famously has roots under a left-leaning guy but they seem to make an effort to report the facts without a consistent agenda. In fairness, I basically think the Huffington Post and MSNBC suffer the same credibility problem as FN though I don't think they are as flagrant about it.

And I object somewhat to the characterization of my comments as "bashing." I have said nothing about FN except that they are biased. They make a point of representing the views of the right wing and I am only pointing that out. If I want to know what the right wing stance on an issue is then FN is a decent source for hearing that point of view. I do watch it occasionally, more than I watch MSNBC. Personally I try to get my news from at least a couple of sources. I read the NYT until they put up the paywall. I like the Financial Times and the WSJ. I sometimes read the Washington Post. But then I think for myself and form my own opinions. Oh, and I do sometimes read HuffPo but mostly for fluff.

Vintek says they "have a right to be biased." That might be and it might not be. I would have to research it. In spite of the widespread, knee-jerk belief that companies are free to do whatever they want, this is actually not true. Broadcaster use the public airwaves and operate under licenses that they can only maintain if they serve a public need. For most broadcasters there used to be a requirement that they provide a public service of reporting news professionally. I do not know if this is still true. And FN is primarily cable so they don't use the airwaves. But they are syndicated on radio at times so perhaps they do NOT have the legal right to be biased in their news reporting. But of course I'm not naive enough to think that anything would ever be done about it.

My best suggestion to you Eagle, if you are seriously interested in learning about issues, forming knowledgeable opinions, and having a degree of credibility when arguing your opinions, would be to read at least 4 different sources. FN presents the views of the right wing, CNN seems to try to drive up the middle, MSNBC or HuffPo might be good for you to get some balance, and finally, a well-respected international paper like the Financial Times might also give you perspective on how the rest of the international community addresses problems. And when you read those opposing views, you've got to THINK and keep an open mind. Most sources will report the same facts. If you compare a FN and an MSNBC story for example, any difference in the stories will usually be pure opinion. They will each present the same facts then twist them to support their specific view. If you want to be an intelligent consumer of information and a good citizen in a democracy then you need to ignore the differences between the stories (opinions), extract the common information (facts), and think about to form your own viewpoint. If you find that your own viewpoint always agrees with any particular source then you're doing not thinking for yourself.

Eagle, I answered your question about credible media sources a month ago. Yet you declined to answer mine (bolded) but decided that you like to see us spun up over FN links in another thread. Still waiting for an rational answer. I didn't really intend to revive this thread until I realized that you never not only declined to answer the questions, but jumped threads to post more FUD from FN. Maybe I'll ask these questions every single time you post from FN until you actually answer.