Modern Republicans are Absurd

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]apbt55 wrote:

It is the bleeding haeart progressives that have destroyed the idea of personal responsibility and personal accountability. For being such a free thinking group you seem to want to rob everyone of their freedoms and force them to suffer for those who cannot live independently or responsibly.

[/quote]

YES. All you libs need to stop the elitist “you are not capable of fixing your own problems so let us do it for you, we are Ivy-educated” mindset. Universal healthcare is so bad for the economy in so many ways. I just wish people understood the true principles of free market economics. Just for the record both parties have been extremely out of line in the past 50+ years. But if I had to choose, I would much rather go with Republicans than the Democult.

22

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Didn’t our current president make a campaign promise to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan??

Instead this morning we are hearing of sending 40K more troops over there?[/quote]

No, actually in the campaign he promised more troops in Afghanistan.

23

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Didn’t our current president make a campaign promise to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan??

Instead this morning we are hearing of sending 40K more troops over there?

No, actually in the campaign he promised more troops in Afghanistan.[/quote]

Afghanistan is the good war. That is what Obama said.

24

[quote]snoopabu3 wrote:
libertarian’s are at least consistent in their argument. decreased taxes, decreased spending, greater economic isolationism. this is AT LEAST consistent. Republicans are simply misleading their constituents with their ridiculous portrayal of their fiscal strategy (see post-script of above post). also, i’m not a democrat. i’m an independent who votes in the best interest of our nation, a position it seems republicans no longer share.

furthermore, to the point about universal healthcare not being universally beneficial: i ask you, what happens when an uninsured individual goes to the emergency room and can’t afford to pay the bill? it gets passed to the government for collection. at this point, the government pays far more than is affordable because they didn’t have the benefit of being in prearranged agreement with doctors stipulating exactly what they are willing to pay. the bill is in turn passed on the taxpayer, i.e. YOU.

[/quote]

I do not consider the libertarians to be supportive of economic isolationism. Autarky = utter failure.

Republicans misrepresent “conservatism” the way a majority of people in your everyday life misuse the word “ignorant”. The party is morally ass backwards and puritanistic. This leads to the same big brother government that they supposedly abscond.

I have hope for conservatism, and in every way that does not correlate with the success of the republican party. They could however learn alot from Obamas marketing strategies, if only they could find someone who is not a complete and utter fool to run. Sarah Palin? That wont win you anything. Their new Obamaesque hope seems to be Tim Pawlenty from Minnesota, who seems a little better but has some issues.

25

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Didn’t our current president make a campaign promise to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan??

Instead this morning we are hearing of sending 40K more troops over there?

No, actually in the campaign he promised more troops in Afghanistan.[/quote]

Yeah that’s what I remembered, too…

Barack Obama Acceptance Speech - DNC - 28 August 2008

"When John McCain said we could just muddle through in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights.

You know, John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the gates of Hell, but he won’t even follow him to the cave where he lives."

26

[quote]snoopabu3 wrote:
libertarian’s are at least consistent in their argument. decreased taxes, decreased spending, greater economic isolationism. this is AT LEAST consistent. Republicans are simply misleading their constituents with their ridiculous portrayal of their fiscal strategy (see post-script of above post). [/quote]

That’s because it’s easy to It’s easy to be an armchair Libertarian. It’s easy to spout theory about ending federal spending on social safety net programs. But any politician on a national level who actually moved to end popular programs like Social Security, Medicare, the public school system etc, would be out of office after one term, if not physically thrown out on their ass mid-term. Hardline libertarianism will never be more than a fringe movement unless the GOP is ripped apart into competing factions, and even then Libertarians will not be the dominant force on the national stage.

So talk about Libertarianism all you want. Because that’s basically all it ever will be… just talk.

But you are correct about Republicans only pretending to be the party of fiscal responsibility. Even honest Republicans will admit that concept is a joke now.

27

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
how is it with any honest recollection of our recent history that patriot Americans can say with any happiness that Republicans will get both houses back in 2010? have you forgotten that both the 108th and 109th congress (2003-2007) were composed of a republican majority and a republican tiebreaker, Dick Cheney? It was their borderline criminal deregulation of wall street and their insistence on pursuing two dead-end wars costing us 1 million dollars PER SOLDIER PER YEAR that has gotten us to the point where we have to question whether or not we can afford to implement something as beneficial as universal healthcare. Eisenhower was right: republicans’ commitment to the military-industrial complex will spell the end for america, not universal healthcare.

p.s. on a different but related note, is it just me or do republicans truly not understand that if money for programs doesn’t come from taxes then it must be borrowed from other nations i.e. what bush did for 8 years? in other words, how do you think bush was cutting taxes and spending exorbitant amounts of money?

Beneficial Universal Healthcare, to who? It is not beneficial to me at all. So stop saying it is jackass.

How did you get such a rock solid Insurance program ?

[/quote]

It is called my pocket.

28

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
how is it with any honest recollection of our recent history that patriot Americans can say with any happiness that Republicans will get both houses back in 2010? have you forgotten that both the 108th and 109th congress (2003-2007) were composed of a republican majority and a republican tiebreaker, Dick Cheney? It was their borderline criminal deregulation of wall street and their insistence on pursuing two dead-end wars costing us 1 million dollars PER SOLDIER PER YEAR that has gotten us to the point where we have to question whether or not we can afford to implement something as beneficial as universal healthcare. Eisenhower was right: republicans’ commitment to the military-industrial complex will spell the end for america, not universal healthcare.

p.s. on a different but related note, is it just me or do republicans truly not understand that if money for programs doesn’t come from taxes then it must be borrowed from other nations i.e. what bush did for 8 years? in other words, how do you think bush was cutting taxes and spending exorbitant amounts of money?

Beneficial Universal Healthcare, to who? It is not beneficial to me at all. So stop saying it is jackass.

How did you get such a rock solid Insurance program ?

It is called my pocket.[/quote]

Have you ever had a major claim ?

29

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
how is it with any honest recollection of our recent history that patriot Americans can say with any happiness that Republicans will get both houses back in 2010? have you forgotten that both the 108th and 109th congress (2003-2007) were composed of a republican majority and a republican tiebreaker, Dick Cheney? It was their borderline criminal deregulation of wall street and their insistence on pursuing two dead-end wars costing us 1 million dollars PER SOLDIER PER YEAR that has gotten us to the point where we have to question whether or not we can afford to implement something as beneficial as universal healthcare. Eisenhower was right: republicans’ commitment to the military-industrial complex will spell the end for america, not universal healthcare.

p.s. on a different but related note, is it just me or do republicans truly not understand that if money for programs doesn’t come from taxes then it must be borrowed from other nations i.e. what bush did for 8 years? in other words, how do you think bush was cutting taxes and spending exorbitant amounts of money?

Beneficial Universal Healthcare, to who? It is not beneficial to me at all. So stop saying it is jackass.

How did you get such a rock solid Insurance program ?

It is called my pocket.

Have you ever had a major claim ?

[/quote]

Never made a claim to a health insurance co. in my life since I pay out of pocket, but I have paid for some expensive surgeries.

30

[quote]Sanitarium wrote:
apbt55 wrote:

It is the bleeding haeart progressives that have destroyed the idea of personal responsibility and personal accountability. For being such a free thinking group you seem to want to rob everyone of their freedoms and force them to suffer for those who cannot live independently or responsibly.

YES. All you libs need to stop the elitist “you are not capable of fixing your own problems so let us do it for you, we are Ivy-educated” mindset. Universal healthcare is so bad for the economy in so many ways. I just wish people understood the true principles of free market economics. Just for the record both parties have been extremely out of line in the past 50+ years. But if I had to choose, I would much rather go with Republicans than the Democult.[/quote]

apbt55 and Sanitarium -

Very well said, I agree with you 100%.

31

[quote]K2000 wrote:

So talk about Libertarianism all you want. Because that’s basically all it ever will be… just talk.

[/quote]

Just talk? The original constitution is practically libertarianism defined. We were founded as a libertarian country.

32

Modern Republicans are worse than pathetic. Democrats aren’t great either, just not as pathetic.

33

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
blake2616 wrote:
but beneficial to the insurance companies.

It’s actually quite the opposite. As it stands, this bill will destroy insurance as we know it by preventing them from discriminating against people with previously known conditions.

Please explain futher why you feel this way as I am interested in hearing this (seriously).[/quote]

If you could buy car insurance after you totaled your car, would car insurance companies still be in business?

34

[quote]Producer wrote:
Modern Republicans are worse than pathetic. Democrats aren’t great either, just not as pathetic.

[/quote]

RABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLE I HATE IT WHEN CONSERVATIVES CALL ME UNAMERICAN
RABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLE CONSERVATIVES LIKE RUSH LIMBAUGH AND SEAN HANNITY ARE UNAMERICAN
RABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLERABBLE I SEE NO CONTRADICTION HERE

I rest my case.

35

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
lanchefan1 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
blake2616 wrote:
but beneficial to the insurance companies.

It’s actually quite the opposite. As it stands, this bill will destroy insurance as we know it by preventing them from discriminating against people with previously known conditions.

Please explain futher why you feel this way as I am interested in hearing this (seriously).

If you could buy car insurance after you totaled your car, would car insurance companies still be in business?
[/quote]

I see the point you are trying to make and in the case of a health issue, the illustration provided would be the same as if you chain smoked all the while deibrately shirking your responsability to carry some kind of health insurance then expecting coverage once you contract lung cancer, and the insurance company not being able to deny you.

But what about the person who loses a job. Had health insurance through their employer, and cannot afford to ‘buy’ their policy and take the insurance with them therefore losing insurance. If they were diabetic, a condition they developed while covered under their old insurance, I challenge you to find one insurance company that will cover the condition without demanding an unpayable premium.

This isn’t someone who irresponsibly chose not to carry coverage whilst living a compromising lifestyle per se. A lack of personal responsibility doesn’t even come into it. Our system currently doesn’t give adequate enough protection to the innocent or unfortunate, though I’m not so sure an 800+ billion dollar overhaul is the answer either.

36

The problem with this whole health insurance reform is we are moving further and further away from what insurance really is.

Insurance is there to protect you from something that would financially bankrupt you. Insurance would be cheap if it was just catastrophic insurance. Without insurance doctors wouldn’t be on fixed prices so then capitalism would take over and the prices would fall.

We like to talk about insuring those with pre-existing conditions, the problem is if you start insuring those know one is going to buy insurance till they are sick. Now I think we can all realize that if that happens all the insurance agency’s would collapse. If you have a government run insurance plan they are going to start having to tax everyone into bankruptcy just to pay for it.

The people supporting the plan on both sides are really good with emotional arguments, but when you get to facts you realize what they are saying is retarded.

37

[quote]John S. wrote:
The problem with this whole health insurance reform is we are moving further and further away from what insurance really is.

Insurance is there to protect you from something that would financially bankrupt you. Insurance would be cheap if it was just catastrophic insurance. Without insurance doctors wouldn’t be on fixed prices so then capitalism would take over and the prices would fall.

We like to talk about insuring those with pre-existing conditions, the problem is if you start insuring those know one is going to buy insurance till they are sick. Now I think we can all realize that if that happens all the insurance agency’s would collapse. If you have a government run insurance plan they are going to start having to tax everyone into bankruptcy just to pay for it.

The people supporting the plan on both sides are really good with emotional arguments, but when you get to facts you realize what they are saying is retarded.[/quote]

Giving people the equivalent of a golden parachute to insured health care is a disastrous idea. I would have prefered a health care overhaul bill be a relatively inexpensive peice of tough and enforcable legislation that could protect both the insurance companies AND the public, but it looks to be an expensive chrome plated turd instead.

As far as us getting up to speed with other countries who already have universal health care, the jury is out on how good it inevitably is. Take Taiwan as an example. They supposedly built there public health care system to be devoid of the same pitfalls other nations had with theirs. There are virtually no waiting lines. The quality of care is good and the cost to the average citizen is fairly low… The downside? It’s bankrupting them. Taiwan is currently borrowing massive amounts of money from other nations to bankroll their healthcare.

Sweden supposedly has very low cost drugs to compliment their system, but once again the burden of R&D costs goes to U.S. pharmaseutical companies. Someone somewhere is eventually going to pay the bill…

I refuse to believe that the free market is or can be self regulatory though. Deregulating power in states like California has led to rolling blackouts and other troubles. Relaxing regulations on the financial industry didn’t do us any good either. Putting regulations on companies as to how they can do business does not necessarily lead to outrageously big government or socialism. It beats the hell out of the government going into competition with the private sector in my book.

Legislation and it’s enforcement is a big part of what the government is supposed to do. Write laws that allow for fair play in business and protect consumers, then enforce them. Regulation of different industries is a part of that process. It’s not an emotional argument it’s a logical one.

38

First off the Governments job is to protect freedoms. It has failed miserably.

Free market works for food, clothing, we saw what happened when government interfered with housing. When we trust in the free market everything does better.

Take a look at plastic surgery and other kinds of uninsured procedures, when we take into account inflation there prices are actually decreasing. This right here should show that the free market works.

To doubt free market is to doubt America. Our ancestors fled the tyrants in other countries who thought they could regulate everything.

The government has 3 jobs in the free market. 1, to keep things regulated(by regulated I mean the legal term Open). 2, to coin and use weight and measure of money(Gold silver as money). You may realize that they have abandoned there 2nd job. 3, to insure patents. Refer to article 1 section 8 of the constitution.

it is these 3 things that Free market can not do on its own(tho I do think it can handle the second one by itself).

Notice they are not allowed to give health care, they are not allowed to give social security(redistribution of wealth). When they overstep there bounds the government always leads to suffering and gives rise to Tyrants.

39

[quote]John S. wrote:
First off the Governments job is to protect freedoms. It has failed miserably.

Free market works for food, clothing, we saw what happened when government interfered with housing. When we trust in the free market everything does better.

Take a look at plastic surgery and other kinds of uninsured procedures, when we take into account inflation there prices are actually decreasing. This right here should show that the free market works.

To doubt free market is to doubt America. Our ancestors fled the tyrants in other countries who thought they could regulate everything.

The government has 3 jobs in the free market. 1, to keep things regulated(by regulated I mean the legal term Open). 2, to coin and use weight and measure of money(Gold silver as money). You may realize that they have abandoned there 2nd job. 3, to insure patents. Refer to article 1 section 8 of the constitution.

it is these 3 things that Free market can not do on its own(tho I do think it can handle the second one by itself).

Notice they are not allowed to give health care, they are not allowed to give social security(redistribution of wealth). When they overstep there bounds the government always leads to suffering and gives rise to Tyrants.[/quote]

This sounds like a rather extreme rendering but I respect your views.

On one of your points I especially agree, that true ‘money’ does not exist and hasn’t for some time. This may be the most insidious sap on both our economy and the political structure. When was the last time any politician spoke of overhauling our monitary system to one not controlled by central banks?

Lincoln for one could envision a solvent nation, but I have yet to see a current candidate taken seriously who wasn’t spot welded to the Federal Reserve. I work close to the financial industry and see very clearly how they operate. It’s frightening, but we are as far from reforming it as ever even in the face of the latest disasters.

BTW you sound like an Ayn Rand fan, “Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”

40

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
snoopabu3 wrote:
how is it with any honest recollection of our recent history that patriot Americans can say with any happiness that Republicans will get both houses back in 2010? have you forgotten that both the 108th and 109th congress (2003-2007) were composed of a republican majority and a republican tiebreaker, Dick Cheney? It was their borderline criminal deregulation of wall street and their insistence on pursuing two dead-end wars costing us 1 million dollars PER SOLDIER PER YEAR that has gotten us to the point where we have to question whether or not we can afford to implement something as beneficial as universal healthcare. Eisenhower was right: republicans’ commitment to the military-industrial complex will spell the end for america, not universal healthcare.

p.s. on a different but related note, is it just me or do republicans truly not understand that if money for programs doesn’t come from taxes then it must be borrowed from other nations i.e. what bush did for 8 years? in other words, how do you think bush was cutting taxes and spending exorbitant amounts of money?

Beneficial Universal Healthcare, to who? It is not beneficial to me at all. So stop saying it is jackass.

How did you get such a rock solid Insurance program ?

It is called my pocket.

Have you ever had a major claim ?

Never made a claim to a health insurance co. in my life since I pay out of pocket, but I have paid for some expensive surgeries.[/quote]

So you are self insured, Do you know you pay more for Medical procedures than Insurance companies do?