Evil republicans eeeeeeeeviiiiiilllll!!!!

[irishScott]

^^^^ The sentiment of most of this forum.


The irony: http://www.gallup.com/poll/157958/americans-say-gov-not-favor-set-values.aspx

As would be expected, Republicans, who generally are more conservative on social issues, widely favor active promotion of traditional values by the government, 65% to 32%. Democrats, on the other hand, believe government should take a more neutral stance, by a slightly larger margin, 67% to 29%. Independents also tend to believe the government should not favor any set of values, 54% to 41%.

The shift away from a preference for government promotion of traditional values is most evident among Republicans, even though Republicans still as a whole favor that course of action. In 2004, 79% of Republicans held that view, compared with 65% today, a change of 14 percentage points.

 

[ericlp]

widely favor active promotion of traditional values by the government

Sheesh what the fuck does that mean? More Religion? War on Drugs? Is that traditional?

 

[irishScott]

widely favor active promotion of traditional values by the government

Sheesh what the fuck does that mean? More Religion? War on Drugs? Is that traditional?

Essentially means they believe the US is a Christian nation founded on Christian values blah blah bleeeeeh...

The good news is the percentage among Republicans has dropped 14 points in 8 years. If that trend continues, it could mean the religious right could be taken down a notch in a decade, and effectively sidelined in two.

 

[DaveSimmons]

GOP Brand Crunchy Snax - Now with 14% less Evil!

It's nice to see that almost 1/3 of Republicans now believe in the separation between church and state.

Having 2/3 still want big government to promote their definition of morality is less nice.

 

[Nemesis 1]

^^^^ The sentiment of most of this forum.


The irony: http://www.gallup.com/poll/157958/americans-say-gov-not-favor-set-values.aspx

BS BS BS Show those words to be true in the real world. It was Demon who made Rothschild your lord and master not repulsives. Befor BUSH/bushJr It was Demons who went to war . BUSH both of them were the first Demons to successfully infiltrate the GOP . THEY were not republicans. Right now in america both party leadership are dancing to the same tune . Obummer performance in the last debate floored me , I couldn't believe my eyes or ears . Maybe the man behind the curtain feels that Romney is better to equiped to bring in the NWO than is obummer

Ron Paul ran as a repulsive we all know he wasn't one. he is was and always will be a libertarian

 

[piasabird]

Isnt O'Bamma using the health care bill in an attempt to force his values on America?

Kilnd of like the SS in Germany.

 

[MixMasterTang]

Isnt O'Bamma using the health care bill in an attempt to force his values on America?

Kilnd of like the SS in Germany.

I didn't know healthcare had a moral compass.

 

[irishScott]

BS BS BS Show those words to be true in the real world. It was Demon who made Rothschild your lord and master not repulsives. Befor BUSH/bushJr It was Demons who went to war . BUSH both of them were the first Demons to successfully infiltrate the GOP . THEY were not republicans. Right now in america both party leadership are dancing to the same tune . Obummer performance in the last debate floored me , I couldn't believe my eyes or ears . Maybe the man behind the curtain feels that Romney is better to equiped to bring in the NWO than is obummer

Ron Paul ran as a repulsive we all know he wasn't one. he is was and always will be a libertarian

 

[Steeplerot]

Isnt O'Bamma using the health care bill in an attempt to force his values on America?
.

Taking care of your fellow American goes back to the pioneer days.

All these cities and towns did not come out of nowhere.

It is this right wing dog eat dog sociopath extremist nonsense that is new historically.

Really it is the cult of Ayn Rand, a very troubled Russian immigrant from a very dysfunctional political world of eastern europe back then.

This is why the extremist right wing GOP ideology does not match up with the USA's GOP historically.

It is a bircher cult wrapped up in a flashy infotainment news politcal soap opera fantasyworld.

Ever notice how the central conspiracy of teh right wing is that the commies are under the bed?

This is simply Ayn Rand channeled, someone who had very big problems with bolsheviks overrunning her country when younger.

Granted she came here and attention whored out her story into a sociopathic cult to literally become the mirror opposite of what she despised.

And the capitalist status quo ate it up. Just what they want, a unregulated feeding frenzy with no power of the people to stop them.

And what did she get for selling out? Dying broke on evil medicare like a bigass hypocrite.

Typical right wing stupidity that leads to being used and discarded by your own ilk.

But you live by the sword....

 

[irishScott]

Isnt O'Bamma using the health care bill in an attempt to force his values on America?

Kilnd of like the SS in Germany.

There's a difference between healthcare policy and moral values. Essentially everyone agrees that every American should have access to adequate healthcare. That's the moral value. The question/debate is about how to best go about that.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Taking care of your fellow American goes back to the pioneer days.

To "take care of someone" implies a voluntary choice.

So what's voluntary about the government forcing some to care for others? Where's the "value" in using force and violence to compel others to serve interests not of their own choosing? That was the policy of the Soviet Union. Why do you want that for the United States?

 

[Juror No. 8]

There's a difference between healthcare policy and moral values. Essentially everyone agrees that every American should have access to adequate healthcare. That's the moral value. The question/debate is about how to best go about that.

If the health care policy is to force some to pay for the health care of others, how is that not a question of morality?

 

[irishScott]

If the health care policy is to force some to pay for the health care of others, how is that not a question of morality?

Technically everything is question of morality from a certain perspective. From some perspectives the entire Constitution is a piece of morality.

But in the context of the question that Gallup asked, "morality" is implicitly defined to mean a higher value system than government policy (religious, cultural, etc) which is the definition I'm using.

 

[Steeplerot]

To "take care of someone" implies a voluntary choice.

So what's voluntary about the government forcing some to care for others?

Whats voluntary about your right wing libertarian neighbors spreading communicable disease because they think of the world in black and white extremes?

The human race's main advantage is not only our opposable thumbs but a highly developed fronal cerebrum designed for intricate higher social functions for the mutual aid of the species.

You are espousing the pseudoscience of social darwinism. Which shows you have not thought this over well or studied much of how humanity functions.

Much less used a little common sense.

Whenever you hear someone say "its human nature" they usually have no clue so take a easy half thought out answer.

Most of the time when you drill down to why it is based off of old victorian and religious ideas of our lot in life and how we shouldn't bother to advance.

Whenever someone says something is hopeless, they are telling you to in a way shut up, and not think.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Whats voluntary about your right wing libertarian neighbors spreading communicable disease because they think of the world in black and white extremes?

The human race's main advantage is not only our opposable thumbs but a highly developed fronal cerebrum designed for intricate higher social functions for the mutual aid of the species.

You are espousing the pseudoscience of social darwinism. Which shows you have not thought this over well or studied much of how humanity functions.

Much less used a little common sense.

Whenever you hear someone say "its human nature" they usually have no clue so take a easy half thought out answer.

Most of the time when you drill down to why it is based off of old victorian and religious ideas of our lot in life and how we shouldn't bother to advance.

Whenever someone says something is hopeless, they are telling you to in a way shut up, and not think.

That was an expert piece of rambling deflection, but didn't address my question at all. Again:

To "take care of someone" implies a voluntary choice.

So what's voluntary about the government forcing some to care for others?

 

[Steeplerot]

That was an expert piece of rambling deflection, but didn't address my question at all. Again:

To "take care of someone" implies a voluntary choice.

So what's voluntary about the government forcing some to care for others?

Why should I deal with your irresponsibility of your health affecting me?

In the real world, no man is a island unto himself. You have a narrow poorly thought out view of extremist easy answers.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Why should I deal with your irresponsibility of your health affecting me?

In the real world, no man is a island unto himself. You have a narrow poorly thought out view of extremist easy answers.

I'm not following you.

Let's say I live a life of irresponsibility. I eat poorly, smoke, drink, and never exercise. During my middle-age years I get extremely sick and have neither money to pay for medical care or family to assist me.

Who says you have to "deal" with my irresponsibility? What makes you think it's your responsibility to come to my rescue?

 

[Steeplerot]

I'm not following you.

Let's say I live a life of irresponsibility. I eat poorly, smoke, drink, and never exercise. During my middle-age years I get extremely sick and have neither money to pay for medical care or family to assist me.

Who says you have to "deal" with my irresponsibility? What makes you think it's your responsibility to come to my rescue?

We all have to deal with one another irresponsibility in close quarters at times, and we all benefit from the many who achieve.

This is the whole history of progress. We are talking reality here, not some sociopath fantasyworld of "every man for himself". You speak of extremism. A totalitarian world of the biggest hoarders levererging power against the weaker. This never works, a society crumbles quickly as it is a imbalance.

 

[Juror No. 8]

We all have to deal with one another irresponsibility in close quarters at times, and we all benefit from the many who achieve.

This is the whole history of progress. We are talking reality here, not some sociopath fantasyworld of "every man for himself". You speak of extremism. A totalitarian world of the biggest hoarders levererging power against the weaker. This never works, a society crumbles quickly as it is a imbalance.

It's notable how you keep avoiding my questions.

Again, why do you feel you have to deal with the irresponsibility of others? Why do you feel you have to deal with another person who is sick or dying?

Also, can you explain how I am the extremist when it is you who is advocating the use of government force and violence against people to force them to pay for the health care of others?

 

[Steeplerot]

It's notable how you keep avoiding my questions.

Again, why do you feel you have to deal with the irresponsibility of others? Why do you feel you have to deal with another person who is sick or dying?

Also, can you explain how I am the extremist when it is you who is advocating the use of government force and violence against people to force them to pay for the health care of others?

You have been answered a few times now. The fact you just do not like or cannot grasp the answers is not my problem.

Physician think for thyself.

 

[ivwshane]

It's notable how you keep avoiding my questions.

Again, why do you feel you have to deal with the irresponsibility of others? Why do you feel you have to deal with another person who is sick or dying?

Also, can you explain how I am the extremist when it is you who is advocating the use of government force and violence against people to force them to pay for the health care of others?

The same reason my taxes go to paying for the police and fire fighters even though I've never needed them. People's actions affect everyone, sometimes in small ways and sometimes in big ways.

If someone fails to take care of themselves and they have insurance who do you think will end up with the burden of paying for that persons need for more coverage? If they don't have insurance who do you think ends up paying for the ER costs? And lastly, would agree that preventative care is better than waiting for something catastrophic to happen? With insurance, don't you think that will have a positive monetary effect on overall healthcare costs?

 

[Juror No. 8]

You have been answered a few times now. The fact you just do not like or cannot grasp the answers is not my problem.

Physician think for thyself.

You didn't answer my questions. All you did was babble along some other, unrelated tangent.

My question: Why do you feel you have to deal with the irresponsibility of others?

Your answer: Hoarders! Totalitarianism! Extremism! Progress!

That's not anything even remotely resembling a rational response, it's abject stupidity.

 

[nehalem256]

And the Democratic Party uses my tax dollars to support their morality.

 

[ivwshane]

And the Democratic Party uses my tax dollars to support their morality.

Yeah? And examples of that would be?

 

[Juror No. 8]

The same reason my taxes go to paying for the police and fire fighters even though I've never needed them. People's actions affect everyone, sometimes in small ways and sometimes in big ways.

How is that the same? How is paying a tax for personal police or fire protection the same as paying a tax to fund the health care of others?

If someone fails to take care of themselves and they have insurance who do you think will end up with the burden of paying for that persons need for more coverage?

Other policyholders. Insurance companies pass along the cost of covering insurance claims to their policyholders.

If they don't have insurance who do you think ends up paying for the ER costs?

Why should anyone be allowed to get medical services from an ER without the ability to pay for it?

And lastly, would agree that preventative care is better than waiting for something catastrophic to happen?

Of course, but this question is irrelevant. This is not a sufficient justification for forcing some people to pay for the preventative care of others.

With insurance, don't you think that will have a positive monetary effect on overall healthcare costs?

You mean government-mandated insurance? No, why would it? Government involvement in the health care industry has done nothing to drive down costs over the last 50 years. Why would it be any different going forward?