the three corollaries of the healthcare reform debate. (check yourself.)

these three considerations are self-evident, and are henceforth corollary to the healthcare reform debate:


1- the integrity of obama and his intentions are forthright.

2- "life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" implies no-cost access to the most basic facilities of life-sustainment. universal health care falls into this category.

3- the sources of the information upon which your argument is based are truthful and independently verifiable.

______

if you do not accept these terms, then you are, respectively:


1- an obama hater.

2- inhuman.

3- a dimwit.

______
further notes, respectively:


1- i appreciate the difficulty of this statement, but in order for us to get anywhere in this debate it is necessary to at least BEGIN from this position. if you believe that, or it is later proven that, obama is a liar and a theif, you must state this from the outset. (it would probably be better for you to use another forum, as the integrity of the president is a seperate issue, altogether.)

2- only the specifics of implementation are up for debate. as a pure ideology, universal healthcare is unquestionable.

3- in general: people that cannot control the tone of their voice, including talk show hosts, certain town hall attendees, and the MSM at large, should be discluded as valid sources. please be sure to check all footnotes.

______


clarify your argument: once you have cleared these three rules, then and ONLY then are you ready to put forward your argument.

please feel free to refer any breaches of these rules back to this thread citing, "please see rule #1", etc.

[edit on 21-8-2009 by tgidkp]

Someone actually flagged this thread?

Um, no offense, but I am not getting what your point is with this thread. Are you stating that you are in favor of universal health care and anyone who is not is an obama hater, inhuman, or a dimwit?

reply to post by rogerstigers

I think that's exactly what he is implying. It also sounds like he wants to debate an issue, with the one stipulation that his point of view must be the only one that is allowed.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck
No, he wants to debate actual policy and implementation of that policy. He doesn't want to discuss whether or not Obama is a liar, and says basically, that if you start from that position we cant discuss the particulars with any honesty. He doesn't want to discuss whether certain people deserve basic care, as he opines that basic humanity would dictate that we all deserve at least access to basic care. And he does not want to hear rhetoric, right or left wing; and if you want to name call and shout "socialism" then this particular discussion forum might not be for you.
Sounds fair to me, in fact I'm attempting something similar here www.abovetopsecret.com... . Good luck.

it is my only intent to clear the debate forum of what i consider to be a dangerous (read: potentially causing literal harm to another person) trend. in my personal observations anytime the debate breaks down, and people start bringing out their hand-guns, one of these three rules has been broken.

if you wish to question the legitimacy of these logics, then please do. but i assure you that they are solid.

reply to post by Artephius Abraxas Helios

Integrity/honesty of the seller = irrelevant.
Philosophical differences = irrelevant.
Political slandering... OK, I can buy that one.

It still sounds like "I wanna debate this issue, but you can't tell me you disagree." I'll pass. Good luck to both of you.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


yes. exactly. these points are irrelevant, and anyone whom is using an argument which is based on these points needs to re-think their position.

this thread is not a debate about healthcare reform itself. but rather, it is a tool by which people can determine the validity of the points being argued elsewhere.



[edit on 20-8-2009 by tgidkp]