What modern Liberalism has come to...

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I understand your point, but you did not answer my question.

You mean this question? "What are a few things specifically you think most liberals blame Bush for too much, and why, so they can be debated?"

I did. It's been debated ad nauseum. Why beat a dead horse?

Yes, I meant that question. I don't recall seeing any good answer to it, but it's up to you to discuss the issue or not to.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
2) I think nationalizing health care is an extreme step. I think the correct step for the government to take at this moment is to leverage its massive spending power to get drug companies / medical equipment companies to lower overall prices the government pays. Right now the GOP has shot down the last two major attempts to do that. What do you suggest?
I don't know about you, but on average health care premiums have doubled in the last 6 years or so.... are we going to let insurance companies / medical companies keep charging what they want?

There is no such thing as a free lunch. The government does not have a giant pile of free money to give to everyone, to reduce the price of gasoline, to reduce the price of health care, or anything else. The government cannot wave a magic wand and say "okay, these pills now only cost $5 instead of $50." That is not how the world works.

Health care premiums are increasing because of runaway insurance coverage. Because so many people have comprehensive insurance that covers all medical expenses, from check-ups to bandaids, there is no downward pressure on price. If you don't care what you are paying for health care, because "it's covered", then you won't shop around for a better price. As the price of common health care services increases, more and more people get comprehensive insurance to pay for it, creating feedback loop. That is why a one-night hospital stay costs $10,000, Tylenol $100, etc.

The free market solutions to the health care problem are to:
a) enact tort reform so doctors aren't afraid to practice medicine without being sued for $1,000,000 from every other patient.
b) ease the burden of non-payers off of hospitals from illegal immigrants some how. (I haven't thought this through, but possibly making the state pay for the hospital costs will entice them to better control their own borders).
c) offer tax write-offs and other stimulus for people that pay for their own health care with cash, offer big incentives for high-deductible HSA-type coverage instead of comprehensive coverage, and if necessary, disincentives for full comprehensive plans.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Nebor
I wish this society would just collapse already. Most of us would die (myself included) but those left over would be tough, self-made survivors, and they'd know what's really important. Instead the most important things people have to talk about are 2 gay guys getting married or the fact that 40 million people don't have health insurance. Who cares.

I don't recall seeing a better summary of the sickness of the far-right faction Nebor represents in years than this post.

It reminds me of the old debate in the 60's about 'winning a nuclear war, so well summarized by the head of our Air Force Strategi Air Command:

"Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war, if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win."
--Thomas Power, commander in chief of the Strategic Air Command from 1957 to 1964, speaking to a Senate defense committee during the Cuban Missile Crisis

That's a very accurate summation of war.

I'd love for you to explain my sickness. Usually it costs $250 an hour to get it explained to me.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Vic
2) I don't have freedom of healthcare right now. I take what my employer gives me or go without.

...

3) The lack of school vouchers does not infringe on your freedom of education. If you want to put your kids in private schools or homeschool, pay for it yourself.

Do you not see some contradiction here? Why does the "if you want the best service, pay for it yourself" work for education, but not health care?

Freedom of health care doesn't mean you get free health care. It means you get to choose how to spend your money on health care. If your job doesn't provide health care, you have the freedom to pay for it yourself, get another job, or go without health care. You have the free choice to decide. If health care is nationalized, you do NOT have freedom of health care. There is only one provider, you have no alternatives, no recourse, and you are forced to pay for it.

There is no such thing as free health care. The government has no money to pay for it that they didn't take from another person. Taking money away from one person to give to another is not freedom. You can advocate robin-hoodism if you like, but don't call it freedom.

Likewise, forcing everyone to pay for public school, whether your kid goes to public school or not, is not freedom. It's not quite as strict as the socialized health care laws, which outlaw private health care like in Canada, but it's close.

Hi, none of these are my arguments, and I don't appreciate being quoted out of context so you can battle back with straw men like this.

I want to pay for my own health care (I did not say otherwise), I just don't want to be constrained in having to purchase it from my employer, which is the existing system that the OP (and now you, apparently) claimed is the only alternative to nationalized health care, i.e. Canada. It is not, we could instead move towards a more free market system (something which both major parties candidates support and which is NOT what we have now), so the OP's argument was FUD, a comment of mine you conveniently snipped out.

Public schools are a necessary item for the common good. Kind of like public roads. Or the law and legal system. Or the military. Or government itself. You might not like the cost, but it does benefit you whether you want to admit it or not, at the very least in making sure that fewer of other people's children become criminals (whereupon you'd have to pay the increased cost of the legal system). Society's benefits come with costs. Don't like it, then leave society. And like all of those, and everything else connected with the state, I want religion (yours, mine, and everyone else's) kept out of it. Period.

I did not, at any place and time, advocate "robin-hoodism." Don't be an ass next time.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Nebor
I wish this society would just collapse already. Most of us would die (myself included) but those left over would be tough, self-made survivors, and they'd know what's really important. Instead the most important things people have to talk about are 2 gay guys getting married or the fact that 40 million people don't have health insurance. Who cares.

Sucks to be you I guess. My life is pretty good, and Im squarely in middle income. Of the 13 countries Ive traveled to, and the 4 I frequent often, I can honestly say I wouldnt want to live anywhere else. If its so bad for you, get off youre lazy ass and move.

I agree that this is one of the best countries in the world, and certainly the best of it's size. But I think we'll see a dramatic shift downwards in quality of life and general happiness within our lifetimes.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: blackangst1

To the guy who converted from Democrat to Bushism in 2007 (!) when every other person in the whole world saw he was an idiot I feel no duty to reply. Have a nice day.

You have GOT to be under 25. Listen punk. Read it how you want. I didnt convert to "Bushism". I switched to Republican. Theres a difference ya dolt. I dislike Bush as much as the next guy. I just think too much is blamed on him that is completely out of his control. That does not make me a supporter. But apperantly folks like you think everything ulimately is his fault you disagree with.

Friend, I've been reading your posts for over a year now and your offerings rank among the most illogical and partisan thoughts that P&N has to offer. Switching to Republican at the height of the Republican backlash is truly a crystalized essence of your online persona. Also, your spelling often sucks. If thinking I'm under 25 makes you feel better about yourself, you're free to do so.

If you mean partisan in that I view things from the right, then you would be correct. Although 20 years ago my thoughts put me squarely in the middle of the Dems but thats a different story.

My spelling often sucks? heh this a forum not a fuckin college class. I couldnt care less ;) Ever think maybe, just possibly, english isnt my first language? thats a possibility too.

Or Im lazy and dont give a rats ass about spelling on an anonymous internet forum.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Duwelon
The liberal left, when confronted, cannot win any argument in an intellectual, logical way. They will resort to flippant humor that assumes everything they don't like is a joke without actually pointing out anything funny or making any arguments with real substance.

when his posts are debunked, the conversative makes a strawman argument
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I understand your point, but you did not answer my question.

You mean this question? "What are a few things specifically you think most liberals blame Bush for too much, and why, so they can be debated?"

I did. It's been debated ad nauseum. Why beat a dead horse?

Yes, I meant that question. I don't recall seeing any good answer to it, but it's up to you to discuss the issue or not to.

Right. And I did answer it, although not to your liking I guess. I didnt list specifics-on purpose for the reason given. But, as a general rule, I think most of what is perceived as Bush's failures lie squarely in the hands of Congress.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Nebor
I wish this society would just collapse already. Most of us would die (myself included) but those left over would be tough, self-made survivors, and they'd know what's really important. Instead the most important things people have to talk about are 2 gay guys getting married or the fact that 40 million people don't have health insurance. Who cares.

Sucks to be you I guess. My life is pretty good, and Im squarely in middle income. Of the 13 countries Ive traveled to, and the 4 I frequent often, I can honestly say I wouldnt want to live anywhere else. If its so bad for you, get off youre lazy ass and move.

I agree that this is one of the best countries in the world, and certainly the best of it's size. But I think we'll see a dramatic shift downwards in quality of life and general happiness within our lifetimes.

Thats fine. The glass is half empty. Not wrong, just a different POV I guess. but trust me when I say to get low enough to compare to third world countries (you know some on this board have said we're heading there? lol), and most first world countries...we have a long fuckin way to go. And as an observation...thats a MUCH different tone than your first comment.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
2) I think nationalizing health care is an extreme step. I think the correct step for the government to take at this moment is to leverage its massive spending power to get drug companies / medical equipment companies to lower overall prices the government pays. Right now the GOP has shot down the last two major attempts to do that. What do you suggest?
I don't know about you, but on average health care premiums have doubled in the last 6 years or so.... are we going to let insurance companies / medical companies keep charging what they want?

There is no such thing as a free lunch. The government does not have a giant pile of free money to give to everyone, to reduce the price of gasoline, to reduce the price of health care, or anything else. The government cannot wave a magic wand and say "okay, these pills now only cost $5 instead of $50." That is not how the world works.

Health care premiums are increasing because of runaway insurance coverage. Because so many people have comprehensive insurance that covers all medical expenses, from check-ups to bandaids, there is no downward pressure on price. If you don't care what you are paying for health care, because "it's covered", then you won't shop around for a better price. As the price of common health care services increases, more and more people get comprehensive insurance to pay for it, creating feedback loop. That is why a one-night hospital stay costs $10,000, Tylenol $100, etc.

The free market solutions to the health care problem are to:
a) enact tort reform so doctors aren't afraid to practice medicine without being sued for $1,000,000 from every other patient.
b) ease the burden of non-payers off of hospitals from illegal immigrants some how. (I haven't thought this through, but possibly making the state pay for the hospital costs will entice them to better control their own borders).
c) offer tax write-offs and other stimulus for people that pay for their own health care with cash, offer big incentives for high-deductible HSA-type coverage instead of comprehensive coverage, and if necessary, disincentives for full comprehensive plans.

The bloated health care costs come largely from an inefficiency of the private system's insurance industry, one of the biggest political donor industries in our nation.

Yes, Virginia, there is such a thing as private sector inefficiency. It's mainly controlled by the government setting up the rules to force competition where business prefers not to have it. Left to its own devices, power tends to corrupt, and the private sector is not immune to that maxim.

Your 'free market solutions' are just disastrous policies.

a) that's another way of saying 'protect the medical industry from any accountability for its wrongs, and deny the average citizen the ability to get justice from powerful entities'.

The predictable result would be an increase in wrongdoing and harm. (That's a bad thing, I feel the need to point out). The legal industry isn't perfect, but letting the right-wing and its allies like the targets of the lawsuits create the 'reform' is like letting the fox design the security system for the henhouse.

Your system isn't 'market based'; you just use that label because your ideology likes it. It's hardly market based for you to simply deny the practical ability for people to sue.

b) Really falls under the larger issue of illegal immigration in general. In the meantime, they add a lot more to our economy and I'm not going to leave them suffering.

c) I think what you're getting at here is the need to control costs by discouraging the excessive use when care is 'free' to the consumer.

Before discussing the point, I think it's important to note how the opponents of UHC are trying to have it both ways with this argument - they raise the problem of 'free' care abuse and call for controls while at the same time predicting big problems when the government tries to put any controls in place. So what they're saying is that they want unlimited care from the inefficient *private* sector only, not from UHC.

As to the issue, I think it's a legitimate one, but not one that changes the basic debate on UHC or not UHC. There are experts who analyze and recommend solutions, e.g., co-pay.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Nebor
I wish this society would just collapse already. Most of us would die (myself included) but those left over would be tough, self-made survivors, and they'd know what's really important. Instead the most important things people have to talk about are 2 gay guys getting married or the fact that 40 million people don't have health insurance. Who cares.

Sucks to be you I guess. My life is pretty good, and Im squarely in middle income. Of the 13 countries Ive traveled to, and the 4 I frequent often, I can honestly say I wouldnt want to live anywhere else. If its so bad for you, get off youre lazy ass and move.

I agree that this is one of the best countries in the world, and certainly the best of it's size. But I think we'll see a dramatic shift downwards in quality of life and general happiness within our lifetimes.

Thats fine. The glass is half empty. Not wrong, just a different POV I guess. but trust me when I say to get low enough to compare to third world countries (you know some on this board have said we're heading there? lol), and most first world countries...we have a long fuckin way to go. And as an observation...thats a MUCH different tone than your first comment.
I agree, most of us are just extremely disappointed that our country isn't as great as it was a mere 7+ years ago.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I understand your point, but you did not answer my question.

You mean this question? "What are a few things specifically you think most liberals blame Bush for too much, and why, so they can be debated?"

I did. It's been debated ad nauseum. Why beat a dead horse?

Yes, I meant that question. I don't recall seeing any good answer to it, but it's up to you to discuss the issue or not to.

Right. And I did answer it, although not to your liking I guess. I didnt list specifics-on purpose for the reason given. But, as a general rule, I think most of what is perceived as Bush's failures lie squarely in the hands of Congress.

I'm not going to try to discuss an issue on which you don't want to provide specifics, but I'll suggest you compare the difference between the Republican congress under Clinton, and the Republican congress under Bush. If your theory were true, we wouldn't see such huge differences. If you provided specifics we could see how correct they are.
 

Capitalizt

Banned
Nov 28, 2004
1,513
0
0
Neither liberalism nor conservatism have any respect for freedom today.

Both parties like their tyranny...just in different areas.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: blackangst1

Again, because we have ZERO way of knowing what the picture would look like without it. You call it a failure. What would success be to you? Zero drugs? lol I know you arent THAT unrealistic. Less drugs than what we have now? How do you quantify "less"? How do you know we dont ALREADY have less? AGAIN dont mistake my comments to mean it a success. Some of it IS. We've made some major busts that may (or may not ) have happened because of funding.

We dont friggin know. But, and I know Im the minority on this board, my opinion is...the shits illegal. Illegal means its a crime. Crime has sentancing. Some of that sentancing includes jail. Get over it. People know that when they use. It is what it is. Let me give you another example. I believe prostitution should be legal and legalized. But its not. If Im picked up soliciting, all the crying in the world isnt going to change the fact I *knew* it was illegal when I did it. The price must then be paid.

The issue isn't if people who break the law should be put in jail, its that the law shouldn't be there to begin with. The 'major busts' are POINTLESS. You are arguing that things would be worse without the war on drugs, but I am aware of no credible evidence to back this up.

See my comment about prostitution.

Can you point me to credible evidence that our current illegal drug condition would be similar if the time, money, and energy WERENT spent on it?

I didnt think so. As I first said. It's speculation.

You ask for credible evidence about an alternate reality? It's a horrible but typical argument. Was Vietnam a mistake? How can we know what would have happened if we didn't go in, it'd be speculation! Was "interring" Japanese Americans during WWII a mistake? Who can say what would have happened if we didn't lock them up, it would be speculation! Was invading Iraq a mistake? How can we know the results if we didn't invade, that's speculation! By your standard we shouldn't discuss any alternate paths because it would be "only speculation", and your argument that we don't know what would happen if the war on drugs abated is a loser. Other countries have fewer restrictions, spend far less battling drugs, and their populations still have lower rates of usage and fewer incarcerated. The goal of the "war on drugs" is to reduce or eliminate the supply and demand of narcotics. That within a couple hours I could get just about any drug I wanted = failure. The WoD is a political talking point when running for office to sound like a tough on crime prosecutor. Shit, our current and likely next president were habitual drug users. That they aren't both rotting in a cell somewhere is only a happy coincidence, or a really sad outcome depending on how your affiliations.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Nebor
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Nebor
I wish this society would just collapse already. Most of us would die (myself included) but those left over would be tough, self-made survivors, and they'd know what's really important. Instead the most important things people have to talk about are 2 gay guys getting married or the fact that 40 million people don't have health insurance. Who cares.

Sucks to be you I guess. My life is pretty good, and Im squarely in middle income. Of the 13 countries Ive traveled to, and the 4 I frequent often, I can honestly say I wouldnt want to live anywhere else. If its so bad for you, get off youre lazy ass and move.

I agree that this is one of the best countries in the world, and certainly the best of it's size. But I think we'll see a dramatic shift downwards in quality of life and general happiness within our lifetimes.

Thats fine. The glass is half empty. Not wrong, just a different POV I guess. but trust me when I say to get low enough to compare to third world countries (you know some on this board have said we're heading there? lol), and most first world countries...we have a long fuckin way to go. And as an observation...thats a MUCH different tone than your first comment.
I agree, most of us are just extremely disappointed that our country isn't as great as it was a mere 7+ years ago.

You mean with artificially deflated inflation rates? Or did you mean the HUGELY overvalued stock market perhaps? Or maybe it's because according to FBI statistics total violent crimes were lower in 2006 than in 2000? Oh I know...the fact that just about anyone, regardless of credit history, could get a mortgage? Or maybe it was due to the fact it was so much easier to file bankruptcy in 2000 for those who couldnt balance their way out of a wet paper sack, causing new bankruptcy guidlines a couple years later? Oh I know. The total ass-fucking by Enron to it's subsideraries and employees?

Like that you mean?

Look, I get your point. am I picking and choosing what Im looking at? Fuck yeah I am. As are most of you. But the fact is, there will always be upward and downward trends...it's just the subject matter that varies. And if you think the above things I mentioned havent contributed to the financial mess we're in today, you are just plain blind.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: blackangst1

See my comment about prostitution.

Can you point me to credible evidence that our current illegal drug condition would be similar if the time, money, and energy WERENT spent on it?

I didnt think so. As I first said. It's speculation.

That line of argument is ridiculous. By that measure we can never determine the success or failure of any program ever. It would always be speculation. As someone else posted you are asking for evidence about a reality that never existed... surely you can see the gaping hole in your logic here?

Policies are usually measured by how effectively they achieve their goals in relation to how much time and money we spend on implementing the policy. I would love to see an argument about how the war on drugs is achieving its goal, and achieving it to an extent that outweighs the massive fiscal and social costs we are paying for it. Indulge me.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: blackangst1

See my comment about prostitution.

Can you point me to credible evidence that our current illegal drug condition would be similar if the time, money, and energy WERENT spent on it?

I didnt think so. As I first said. It's speculation.

That line of argument is ridiculous. By that measure we can never determine the success or failure of any program ever. It would always be speculation. As someone else posted you are asking for evidence about a reality that never existed... surely you can see the gaping hole in your logic here?

Policies are usually measured by how effectively they achieve their goals in relation to how much time and money we spend on implementing the policy. I would love to see an argument about how the war on drugs is achieving its goal, and achieving it to an extent that outweighs the massive fiscal and social costs we are paying for it. Indulge me.

Success or failure is determined by benchmarks. Which benchmark are we using to determine it is an "epic" failure?
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Specop 007
As opposed to the sickness of the Left in trying to socialize the country?

Huh.

1. The left is not trying to socialize the country. They are in favor of moving a little bit in that direction from where we are, so I'll consider that your point instead.

2. There's nothing 'sick' about the left's efforts to make the nation more prosperous and just, to increase opportunity and reduce wrongs we do.

I see a lack of any specifics in your post, you don't make the case whatsoever for your claim. (I think the sickness in Nebor's post is self-evident but can explain if needed).

1) The Left always wants to move "a little bit" in that direction. Then when they get it, its another "little bit". And another, and another.....

2) I've never heard a valid reason why the government should rob me at gunpoint to give it to someone else "more deserving". You can say its just or righteous or whatever, but the simple truth is your robbing from one person to give to another. I'm sorry but when I see where the majority of the money goes, it does make me sick. In 75% of the cases it goes to what amounts to the bottom of the barrel in this country.

What specifics do you want? First it was SS, then Medicaid, Medicare, now its socialized healthcare......Always just a "little bit more" to the Left.......
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I understand your point, but you did not answer my question.

You mean this question? "What are a few things specifically you think most liberals blame Bush for too much, and why, so they can be debated?"

I did. It's been debated ad nauseum. Why beat a dead horse?

Yes, I meant that question. I don't recall seeing any good answer to it, but it's up to you to discuss the issue or not to.

Right. And I did answer it, although not to your liking I guess. I didnt list specifics-on purpose for the reason given. But, as a general rule, I think most of what is perceived as Bush's failures lie squarely in the hands of Congress.

I'm not going to try to discuss an issue on which you don't want to provide specifics, but I'll suggest you compare the difference between the Republican congress under Clinton, and the Republican congress under Bush. If your theory were true, we wouldn't see such huge differences. If you provided specifics we could see how correct they are.


Wait a minute man...you switched gears...first you were trying to extract specific examples of things that have been blamed on Bush that should actually be blamed on Congress...now you want me to compare the congress from 10 years ago? Thats a whole 'nother thread...
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Neither liberalism nor conservatism have any respect for freedom today.

Both parties like their tyranny...just in different areas.

Liberalism has a great respect for freedom. You want to play word games? Then back it up with more than a one-sentence post, be specific.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Neither liberalism nor conservatism have any respect for freedom today.

Both parties like their tyranny...just in different areas.

Liberalism has a great respect for freedom. You want to play word games? Then back it up with more than a one-sentence post, be specific.

Reminds me of what a WA Supreme court judge told me at a party one night when we were discussing the differences. He said "Both Republicans and Democrats want and encourage you to go out into the world, be what you want to be, and earn a million bucks. The difference is that Democrats think they can spend it better than you can".

I think thats a fairly accurate generalization.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Specop 007
As opposed to the sickness of the Left in trying to socialize the country?

Huh.

1. The left is not trying to socialize the country. They are in favor of moving a little bit in that direction from where we are, so I'll consider that your point instead.

I should accuse you of plagiarism from the 'slippery slope' textbook definition. While you're right that the left will go a bit further, you're wrong overall in calling it 'socialism'.

The left would likely continue to push for a bit more because things tend not to go to the left that much. They're hardly pushing to 'socialize the nation'. You're simply wrong.

But hey, you sure feel like you win with the straw guy's straw beaten out.

2. There's nothing 'sick' about the left's efforts to make the nation more prosperous and just, to increase opportunity and reduce wrongs we do.

I see a lack of any specifics in your post, you don't make the case whatsoever for your claim. (I think the sickness in Nebor's post is self-evident but can explain if needed).

1) The Left always wants to move "a little bit" in that direction. Then when they get it, its another "little bit". And another, and another.....

You're repeating your errors.

2) I've never heard a valid reason why the government should rob me at gunpoint

Ah, yes, the ad nauseum 'all taxation is as bad as Hitler robbing you at gunpoint' rhetoric.

Yes, to pay for the services the society has passed - say, the police who protect you - your money is TAKEN AT GUNPOINT (dramatic music). Who would pay taxes if it weren't?

While people are happy to vote for taxes to pay the police, if they could not pay and not get in trouble for it, why would they pay? Many wouldn't, raising the taxes on others...

to give it to someone else "more deserving".

Also known as "to fund the programs our society has passed."

A Supreme Court Justice said taxes are the price for a civilized society. You lack the political maturity to recognize the basic need for them, and hence you have hissy fits.

You can say its just or righteous or whatever, but the simple truth is your robbing from one person to give to another. I'm sorry but when I see where the majority of the money goes, it does make me sick. In 75% of the cases it goes to what amounts to the bottom of the barrel in this country.

Why don't you back that up? You need a real education in 'where the hell the money get their wealth from, it's from the labor of the rest of the citizens'. You're saying the elderly who get social Medicare are 'the bottom of the barrel'? You're just not rational. Solving a problem and creating opportunity, you see as a 'waste of money'.

What specifics do you want? First it was SS, then Medicaid, Medicare, now its socialized healthcare......Always just a "little bit more" to the Left.......

The specifics I want are ones proving your attack about the 'sickness' of the left's programs.

You now provided 4 programs, but zero actual argument, fact, anything to support your point. Are you simply unable to argue in any rational manner?

But I'll work with what you posted.

How is it that Social Security, which has taken the nation from 90% of the elderly in poverty in the 1920's, to 10% of the elderly in poverty today, "sick"?

How is it that Medicaid and Medicare, which have done so much to provide medical care to those who went without before and suffered, "sick"?

How is it that a good UHC plan which would give the 40+ million without insurance today healthcare, and be more efficient than the corrupt current system, "sick"?

I'd say it's your anti-people ideology that's the sick thing here.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Neither liberalism nor conservatism have any respect for freedom today.

Both parties like their tyranny...just in different areas.

Liberalism has a great respect for freedom. You want to play word games? Then back it up with more than a one-sentence post, be specific.

Reminds me of what a WA Supreme court judge told me at a party one night when we were discussing the differences. He said "Both Republicans and Democrats want and encourage you to go out into the world, be what you want to be, and earn a million bucks. The difference is that Democrats think they can spend it better than you can".

I think thats a fairly accurate generalization.

I don't. I think the Republicans want you to think you can, while they prevent you from being able to by allowing the wealthy to exploit you, and the democrats are in favor of reasonable programs than enrich the society and give Republicans the luxury of whining since they're well fed and not sick without medical care.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I understand your point, but you did not answer my question.

You mean this question? "What are a few things specifically you think most liberals blame Bush for too much, and why, so they can be debated?"

I did. It's been debated ad nauseum. Why beat a dead horse?

Yes, I meant that question. I don't recall seeing any good answer to it, but it's up to you to discuss the issue or not to.

Right. And I did answer it, although not to your liking I guess. I didnt list specifics-on purpose for the reason given. But, as a general rule, I think most of what is perceived as Bush's failures lie squarely in the hands of Congress.

I'm not going to try to discuss an issue on which you don't want to provide specifics, but I'll suggest you compare the difference between the Republican congress under Clinton, and the Republican congress under Bush. If your theory were true, we wouldn't see such huge differences. If you provided specifics we could see how correct they are.


Wait a minute man...you switched gears...first you were trying to extract specific examples of things that have been blamed on Bush that should actually be blamed on Congress...now you want me to compare the congress from 10 years ago? Thats a whole 'nother thread...

I didn't switch gears; I just pointed out the evidence to test your theory, which is to compare whether the policies follow Congress, or the president, requiring 10 years.

You want to only examine the policies under Bush, but you say you won't name any specific policies? That's not reasonable.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: blackangst1

See my comment about prostitution.

Can you point me to credible evidence that our current illegal drug condition would be similar if the time, money, and energy WERENT spent on it?

I didnt think so. As I first said. It's speculation.

That line of argument is ridiculous. By that measure we can never determine the success or failure of any program ever. It would always be speculation. As someone else posted you are asking for evidence about a reality that never existed... surely you can see the gaping hole in your logic here?

Policies are usually measured by how effectively they achieve their goals in relation to how much time and money we spend on implementing the policy. I would love to see an argument about how the war on drugs is achieving its goal, and achieving it to an extent that outweighs the massive fiscal and social costs we are paying for it. Indulge me.

Success or failure is determined by benchmarks. Which benchmark are we using to determine it is an "epic" failure?

Ah ha, so it's no longer that we can't know because who knows what would have happened, now we're using benchmarks. What would you suggest?

Here's a good analysis on the whole issue. You might need a subscription to read it though. In effect, the argument is that the purpose of the war on drugs is to reduce drug use in the US right? Well, it appears to do so, but only on a very marginal level and only for a brief period of time. (much the same way that alcohol prohibition reduced alcohol consumption at first, but then saw its use skyrocket despite it being illegal.)

With that we get a whole host of public health problems, organized crime, violence, etc... etc. The costs are astronomical compared to what we're getting for it.