keepthefaith Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Liberal politicians can't get elected without redistributive policies. Liberal voters actually believe that those on the bottom of the economic ladder are mostly there due to a system that is rigged against them. They also often feel great animosity and jealously toward the rich without any regard or understanding how some do get "rich". Some like Obama actually are on record saying that the civil rights movement failed to compensate or provide economic justice to those that it intended to help. And finally liberals often interpret "the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to include government provided food, clothing, shelter, education, healthcare and as of this last January's state of the union address - daycare and pre-school. All these as a birthright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 10, 2013 Share Posted June 10, 2013 No, it wasn't. Somebody else made that happen. well then, maybe we can find that someone else, and ask them to do it again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted November 16, 2013 Share Posted November 16, 2013 the obama proposal was flawed and watered down to begin with. what i can't comprehend is how this nation lags in taking care of its own. place the blame where ever you want. the suggestion that the united states of america refuses to go forward in providing universal health care is an abomination to common sense. if anything, obama never went far enough. or is it that the tea party constrained the parameters. last i checked, nixon's proposal still works. jw i'll hold up my middle finger, if you want, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 16, 2013 Share Posted November 16, 2013 the obama proposal was flawed and watered down to begin with. what i can't comprehend is how this nation lags in taking care of its own. place the blame where ever you want. the suggestion that the united states of america refuses to go forward in providing universal health care is an abomination to common sense. if anything, obama never went far enough. or is it that the tea party constrained the parameters. last i checked, nixon's proposal still works. jw i'll hold up my middle finger, if you want, too. I see, all we needed to do was to go all in with the incompetence and flawed thinking. That might make sense at 3:00 am but sorta becomes a joke when sober. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 16, 2013 Share Posted November 16, 2013 the obama proposal was flawed and watered down to begin with. what i can't comprehend is how this nation lags in taking care of its own. place the blame where ever you want. the suggestion that the united states of america refuses to go forward in providing universal health care is an abomination to common sense. if anything, obama never went far enough. or is it that the tea party constrained the parameters. last i checked, nixon's proposal still works. jw i'll hold up my middle finger, if you want, too. The Dems themselves killed single payer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 16, 2013 Share Posted November 16, 2013 the suggestion that the united states of america refuses to go forward in providing universal health care is an abomination to common sense. jw Yeah Johnnie, those individual liberties are a B word. What a buffoon. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 16, 2013 Share Posted November 16, 2013 with a system that produces these results? http://finance.yahoo...-153013317.html i keep thinking back to a line from a star trek movie where they travel back to the present and explain to a groundbreaking scientist that they now live in an age where the accumulation of wealth is no longer a measure of success. ridiculous.... WTF is wrong with you? You'd rather live in a time when the King/Queen owned everything? What an azz you are, rejecting human nature and natural law. You're a confederate of low expectations and a deliverer of avarice and greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 (edited) the obama proposal was flawed and watered down to begin with. what i can't comprehend is how this nation lags in taking care of its own. place the blame where ever you want. the suggestion that the united states of america refuses to go forward in providing universal health care is an abomination to common sense. if anything, obama never went far enough. or is it that the tea party constrained the parameters. last i checked, nixon's proposal still works. jw i'll hold up my middle finger, if you want, too. The original proposal was a piece of crap that nobody wanted. True. The alternative, single payer, was an even bigger piece of crap that nobody wanted. Also, true. The next thing is, no matter what, going to be predicated on NOT being Obamacare, which means it's almost certain to be a fine piece of conservative work product. You people have emoted and failed your way into preventing yourself from getting what you want, into getting the exact opposite. And, Republicans will, in the end, be able to take credit for healthcare reform. Regardless of your wishcasting, it WILL cover a lot of people for a lot of things. Not everyone for everything. Should we cover you, or me, for cirrhosis? Or, better, shouldn't both of us have to pay more, because we play more? But, look on the darker side, wawrow: you get to spend the rest of your life, in every political discussion you ever have again, dealing with the "Obamacare" aspect. Let me explain that to you: the next time you are talking about (insert issue here)? You'll have to contend with someone saying "yeah, but that sounds like Obamacare", or, "well we don't want to get into another Obamacare here", or, "that might lead to an Obamacare-like failure"..... ....which is exactly like taking a 15 yard penalty on offense, on 3rd and 10 for hands to the face, right after you THOUGHT you completed the 1st down. It's permanent 3rd and 25, forever, for you. That's what's going to happen...EVERY...time you are in a political discussion, even with people on your own "team". From here on out, every time you post something, you don't think I will say OBAMACARE! in response? You don't think I can find a way to make it relevant to the topic at hand? Of course I can. Enjoy that. I will. Think of it: next time you order a drink, this is what you'll be thinking. Next time I order a drink? So will I. The difference is: I will be laughing. Edited November 18, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 if anything, obama never went far enough. or is it that the tea party constrained the parameters. Yes, that's it. The reason Barack Obama was unable to pass single payer with majorities in both the House and Senate was because of the Tea Party. Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Yes, that's it. The reason Barack Obama was unable to pass single payer with majorities in both the House and Senate was because of the Tea Party. Jesus. He still has friends in some places. The hardest working president just didn't try hard enough, apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 The hardest working president just didn't try hard enough, apparently. Or maybe his message just wasn't clear enough. I mean, hell, he promised us over 30 times that if we liked our plans and doctors we could keep them, and apparently no one understand what he really meant except him, Carney and Pelosi. I think Jon Stewart was the one who ranted that Obama should have said "If you like your plan, you can keep it. Asterisk." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 18, 2013 Share Posted November 18, 2013 Yes, that's it. The reason Barack Obama was unable to pass single payer with majorities in both the House and Senate was because of the Tea Party. Jesus. It is truly amazing and disturbing to me that so many people perceive the single biggest failure of this administration to be that it doesn't act in enough of an imperial fashion. We just had a president create new legislation, on his own, in a press conference, while vowing to veto any legislation created by the proper legislative body that would agree with the legislation he created. And he's not imperial enough. Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 19, 2013 Author Share Posted November 19, 2013 WTF is wrong with you? You'd rather live in a time when the King/Queen owned everything? What an azz you are, rejecting human nature and natural law. You're a confederate of low expectations and a deliverer of avarice and greed. yes, because the only alternative to massive wealth inequality is a monarchy...there were other political philosophers than locke and hobbes with other ideas. why are you so certain they are the most correct or were correct at all? perhaps the most efficient system has not been imagined or tried yet. the obama proposal was flawed and watered down to begin with. what i can't comprehend is how this nation lags in taking care of its own. place the blame where ever you want. the suggestion that the united states of america refuses to go forward in providing universal health care is an abomination to common sense. if anything, obama never went far enough. or is it that the tea party constrained the parameters. last i checked, nixon's proposal still works. jw i'll hold up my middle finger, if you want, too. yes, it's abominable but so are many americans. many are positively darwinian til they fall on hard times. then their thinking tends to change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 yes, because the only alternative to massive wealth inequality is a monarchy... there were other political philosophers than locke and hobbes with other ideas. why are you so certain they are the most correct or were correct at all? perhaps the most efficient system has not been imagined or tried yet. One would imagine that over a span of that three hundred years, that efficient system would have been imagined and put to test. How many failings does marxism need to demonstrate for the true believers to recognize it goes against human nature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 (edited) I'm curious about what all the people crying about a system that doesn't help its own do to personally help others? Anyone here paying extra taxes because it's the right thing to do and the system needs that money to be successful? Edited November 19, 2013 by Joe Miner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Anyone here paying extra taxes because it's the right thing to do and the system needs that money to be successful? It's not their money that's required. It's yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 yes, because the only alternative to massive wealth inequality is a monarchy... there were other political philosophers than locke and hobbes with other ideas. why are you so certain they are the most correct or were correct at all? perhaps the most efficient system has not been imagined or tried yet. yes, it's abominable but so are many americans. many are positively darwinian til they fall on hard times. then their thinking tends to change. "It seems obvious to me now--though I have been slow, I must say, in coming to the conclusion--that the institution of private property is one of the main things that have given man that limited amount of free-and-equalness that Marx hyped to render infinite by abolishing this institution. Strangely enough Marx was the first to see this. He is the one who informed us, looking backwards, that the evolution of private capitalism with its free market had been a precondition for the evolution of all our democratic freedoms. It never occurred to him, looking forward, that if this was so, these other freedoms might disappear with the abolition of the free market." - Max Eastman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 19, 2013 Author Share Posted November 19, 2013 (edited) One would imagine that over a span of that three hundred years, that efficient system would have been imagined and put to test why? it was almost 1700 years AD before hobbes imagined his "law of nature". disregarding the rference to the bible, that's 10s of thousands of years of human history before we have recorded evidence of such a philosophy. how long were humans thinking about ways to rule and govern beforer aristotle and socrates? why would 300 or 3000 years for a new similar landmark philosophy to be put forth seem long? Edited November 19, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 yes, it's abominable but so are many americans. many are positively darwinian til they fall on hard times. then their thinking tends to change. The only thing Darwinian about opposing ObamaCare and idiocy resembling ObamaCare is the ability to see the big picture. There's more than one way to promote health insurance coverage. There are alternatives routes to raising the standard of living aside from nationalizing entire sectors and redistributing wealth. These avenues which I've alluded have centuries of proven results. You propose we scrap everything that has worked and everything that is responsible for our status in exchange for ideas that sound nice. I don't know how you've come to the conclusion that opposing legislation which is failing spectacularly constitutes social darwinism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts