Results 191 to 195 of 195
Thread: Santorum must not be elected
-
03-23-12, 10:34 PM #191
Re: Santorum must not be elected
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
>>> William F. Buckley, Jr. <<<
-
03-23-12, 11:14 PM #192
Re: Santorum must not be elected
Hitch,
I see someone is very bitter about this. Way too bitter. The problem with asking for a "successful liberal government" is that I have no idea how you define "liberal." One thing I have noticed with the far right, is that they have absolutely no understanding when it comes to the political spectrum. None. Those idiots think Obama is a socialist, but they have no clue what that means. Then, I want to to define what qualifies as "successful." In my view, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and France are all very successful nations. Their Gini coefficient after taxes is a lot lower than the United States, which means more equality. Those countries have lower poverty levels, higher life expectancies, spend less on health care, and are overall more happy.
I don't get why you are so happy that you buy your own health insurance through the private market? Are you happy that you get to pay far more than any other nation for exactly the same services? I'd rather roll the ridiculous amount I spent on insurance into my taxes for a public plan. I'd save a lot more money that way, as would virtually everyone in the US. And that stupid "selection board" nonsense you came up with? It already happens here. You either know nothing about our medical system, or you are intentionally disqualifying this country from your list. I could easily find a list of insurance companies denying life-saving care and other procedures. I can tell you right now, from first-hand experience, insurance companies deny treatments they deem unnecessary, even if your doctor recommends it. There are your "selection panels" right there.
I also see no reason to be prideful that you work 60 hours a week without any vacation. Why do you think Europeans are always far more happy than us? Because they get a few weeks of vacation mandated by law and make wages that don't require someone to work 60 hours. Our overly-capitalistic society encourages materialism and buying garbage to keep up with the Jonses. That puts us in a vicious cycle of constantly having to work to buy the new iPhone or whatever other gadget comes out. The cost of college, too, puts an enormous stress on young people. It's insane to price it out of reach for so many people. And you wonder why other countries are becoming far more intelligent than us? All anyone does in the US is go into debt, from the minute we leave high school. You can thank capitalism for that!
Just because you refuse to accept assistance for whatever reason doesn't mean others don't need it. Are there people out there who take advantage? Absolutely, but there are people who take advantage of EVERY. SINGLE. SYSTEM. And not just government ones, either. But they are a slim minority. Just because you have some preconceived notion or stereotypical view about people who accept assistance doesn't mean they are wrong or weak for accepting it. No one is forcing you to take it if you don't want to.
To the charitable thing, I've seen that, but I'd like to see the actual breakdown of the numbers. No one has even provided those numbers, though. There is also a philosophical when it comes to charities, though. Many of these charities are doing things liberals believe the government SHOULD be doing.
Look, the problem is the people who scream "socialist" as the top of their lungs has no idea what socialism is. All they can do is regurgitate the word because they heard it on Fox News. They don't know what it means, and they clearly don't know that every modern country as a mixed economy. There is no pure capitalistic country, just like there is no pure socialistic country.Red_Lizard2, Morningfrost liked this post
-
03-24-12, 12:56 AM #193
Re: Santorum must not be elected
Aaaand you completely evaded my question Hitch. I asked what liberals are close-minded about. You said they are and then went off on a rant about how liberalism doesn't work. Way to show you're one of those open-minded conservatives you're trying to say exist.
And if you honestly think that any person is solely a liberal or solely a conservative, then you're delusional. Everyone is a mix. There are some things I'm liberal about, there are things I'm conservative about. I like to think I'm capable of making up my own mind on whether I agree with something or not, rather then relying on what "my" group's opinion is.
As for volunteer time, I've done none, but I've helped raise money for several charities, most notably the Muscular Dystrophy Association and Susan Coleman for the Cure (though that was mainly helping a friend with her own fundraiser). The last business I worked at was big on community involvement, and the MDA was the one I chose to help.
So really what I feel needs to be said is....calm down Hitch, before you burst a blood vessel.
-
- Join Date
- 11-13-07
- Location
- Plano, TX and Ruston, LA
- Posts
- 32,364
- Post Thanks / Like
- Blog Entries
- 43
03-24-12, 01:33 AM #194Re: Santorum must not be elected
I've raised money for a bunch of charities as have members of my family. We're a mixture of conservative (remember the controversial "clean air" aid that was run against Gore?) all the way to liberal. Our political stances only affect our political donations. And, for the record, I voted for Bush when it was him vs. Kerry and for McCain. I voted against Perry because he's a horrible fucking governor (I think Bush actually did a pretty decent job).
TLR Political affiliation has nothing to do with being charitable other than via correlation. It is not a causation issue.enf-Jesus its been like 12 minutes and you're already worried about stats?! :-P
Bigdog-Sweet home Alabama you are an idiot.
-
03-24-12, 07:07 AM #195
Re: Santorum must not be elected
Certainly there are plenty of rich Democrats with no holes in their pockets. There are also people who think of themselves as ideological conservatives who vote Dem. I've also met lots of people who don't personally have what they would call an ideology.
You asked:
why in the hell would any self-respecting homosexual be conservative?
I told you why.
It seemed like there wasn't enough distinction being made between that and being a Republican. I'm sure there are plenty of examples to be found of Democratic party leaders playing the wedge game. But at this moment in history the style of litmus-test, check list, national campaigning is the hallmark of one particular party more so than the other.
I'm not one who thinks that all politicians are equally corrupt, or that each of the two main parties are just as bad as the other. But we weren't talking about that. You asked about being gay and being conservative. Being both doesn't seem strange to me. Less likely, but not crazy.
I think it's an equally interesting question to ask why the hell any self-respecting conservative would be a Republican.
In any case, my answer was honestly given. I won't be wearing this scarlet T, so you can have it back.
Cheers,
AetheLove
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks