Please explain...

[big.ed]

TheBlaze? Really? May as well go dig up some Ed Shultz "references" to debate your source with. Neither are good sources, because both start with an agenda and a point of view, then both just use whatever comes their way to prove themselves correct. If what TheBlaze tells you passes for "proof" in your reality, good luck. That would be like me using Ed Schultz and Al Sharpton as "sources" for "proof." Seriously? That's just laughable.

so who would go to keith olberman lmfao

[skids]

I don't debate issues by saying "Well, if you can't PROVE me wrong with empirical evidence, then I MUST be right." That is illogical, it's called "proving the negative." It's one of the sure signs of a poorly constructed argument, because anyone who understands pure logical thinking knows that you can't claim one thing is absolutely true simply because it can't be proven false. In other words, just because your claim can't be proven false doesn't necessarily make it true. That logic does not work.

Here's a breakdown of your claim, your argument and your premises for your argument.

Claim- The website is costing millions and millions more than originally reported. (This is your claim, even though you did pose it as a rhetorical question by stating "Are you saying the website isn't costing extra millions?", which is simply stating your claim "the website is costing extra millions" by challenging someone else to "prove it isn't." Then you go on to state "show me the evidence to the contrary, then we can debate it." Which is just stating "Until you can prove their claims wrong, I am going to assume they are right." Which is fundamentally flawed reasoning. Just because their claims cannot be proven wrong does not make them "factual." It just illustrates that presuming the negative is true because no one can prove it false is flawed reasoning.

Argument- The cost is going to be way higher because this Administration doesn't tell the truth about anything.

Premise- Obama and his Administration are liars.
Premise-If you can't show me evidence that disproves my claim that it's costing $634 million, then I must be right.

Well, it all falls apart because you aren't arguing from a verifiable, fact checkable, legitimately sourced basis. You "presume" people are liars because that conveniently fits into your way of thinking. You presume the budget reported is incorrect, because you already presume the source lies. But, you don't KNOW for a FACT the source is lying to you (but of course, I am certain that you "just know" they are, because you possess omniscient omnipotence and know all thoughts of all people) therefore you cannot know for a FACT that the $93 million figure is false.

The truth lies somewhere between $93 million and $634 million. I don't believe either number is wholly accurate, but if I had to choose, I would go closer to the $93 million, because the source for the $634 million is not only unknown, but in all likelihood playing on some people's naivete and predilection for hating Obama to make an impact.

$634 million is called misinformation and propaganda in reality.

Actually there IS proof that this President LIES! I can cite MANY examples of PROOF (and have). This being the case (provable lies in the past), I said "I have no problem believing" that they lied again.

The whole point I was making is that saying it "seems" that tax payers are going to foot the bill for the website cost overrun is appropriate, because it DOES SEEM that way. Can you honestly say it doesn't?

I simply asked for evidence to the contrary. You CAN have evidence to the contrary. I never said it wasn't true if he couldn't supply the evidence. That was YOU putting words in my mouth. I simply asked if he didn't think it seemed that way too, and said I have no trouble believing they lied, yet again.

[DirtRacer2014]

Mr. President, In one of your famous #Obamacare speeches you stated, "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." Well, as evidenced by the letter, which my wife and I just received, you lied. We did "like our plan" and were informed in this letter that our plan will no longer exist and we will be forced to purchase a new plan, from a website which doesn't work, for a higher monthly premium, for services we don't want. Now, I know I am not one of your connected cronies and insiders, who were all given waivers from this disastrous piece of legislation. but I was still praying that given our middle-class existence, operating a small-business, that your "fundamental transformation" of America would have stayed out of our home. Apparently that is not the case as my public battle against your disastrous presidency has just become personal.

[mudslinger47]

I realize that the Republicans aren't exactly the end-all of greatness, but with this president and his administration, pond scum would be a step up.... and you can take that to the bank....not even his most ardent supporters here or anywhere else can defend his constant lying.....

[Clayton_Wetter]

Only 51,000 nation wide have actually signed up for it???? HMMMMM?

Correction I just heard a new figure of 36,000, sorry!

[Clayton_Wetter]

I have only been here for a week or so but can already see the pattern on here.Everything i write has to go through the moderator first before it gets posted and more than half never get posted. This president has done more to harm American people than any other person in the history of the world. putting Known terrorist in positions of power here in the United States. Funding the Terrorist that wish to kill all Americans. Giving Guns to the Mexican Drug lords while trying to take away our 2nd amendment rights. Giving Amnesty to 30 million unregistered Democrats. purposely trying to bankrupt our country.Like i have said before. look at what he does not what he says! If he were anything other than what he is he would have been impeached by now.

You are not alone in recognizing all of this!

[Clayton_Wetter]

TheBlaze? Really? May as well go dig up some Ed Shultz "references" to debate your source with. Neither are good sources, because both start with an agenda and a point of view, then both just use whatever comes their way to prove themselves correct.

If what TheBlaze tells you passes for "proof" in your reality, good luck. That would be like me using Ed Schultz and Al Sharpton as "sources" for "proof." Seriously? That's just laughable.