Thread: Santorum must not be elected

Originally Posted by AetheLove

Because they're conservative?

Because they believe that if markets work, you should leave them alone? Because they own a business and believe that a healthy business environment is a core requirement to a healthy society? Because they think that government is necessary, but the less you can get by with the better? Because they believe that libertarianism might not have all the answers, but it might have a few? Because they are hard-core individualists who demand equality, but don't want favours just because they might be in a minority group?

Do I need to go on?

The problem isn't that being gay and being conservative are incompatible. The problem isn't with conservatives (though conservatism has its own problems). The problem is with the lunatic, divisive, politics of the Republican party - which we too often, and for reasons passing understanding, equate with conservatism. The problem is with rich conservatives; whose idea of conservatism is conserving their relative wealth ratio, and who have chosen a public face for their agenda.

Cheers,


AetheLove

Oh, so the Liberal/Democrat rich are all about sharing their cash? Whatever troll. There are plenty of rich democrats with no holes in their pockets. You cannot be serious with the divisiveness belonging to only the republicans. Really?!

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.

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.