PDA

View Full Version : The Republicans Who Cried Socialism



Wei Wu Wei
07-09-2012, 05:33 PM
Have the Republicans and the right-wing movement in this nation overplayed their hands during the health care debate? Is this a case similar to the "boy who cried wolf"? I submit that they have.

Let's start with what this new health care law is not:
It is not a government health insurance plan that everyone has to buy
It is not a universal system similar to medicare
It is not a system like they have in Canada or France or Cuba
It is not a one-size-fits-all public plan
It is not a single payer system
It is not a socialized health insurance system

However, for the last 3 years, hour after hour, day after day, the right-wing message control machine has been screaming and bleating these claims over and over and over. In fact, they succeeded in entirely saturating the public debate. On every radio station and every cable news network, the debate focused around "socialized medicine" and a "government plan" and so on.

While these absurd claims have worked at scaring a certain subsection of Americans, over time, the effect of these claims has worn off. Now, this health care bill is the law of the land. It has passed all three branches of government: the congress passed it, the president signed it, and the supreme court has ruled that it is constitutional.

In order for this bill to be repealed, it would require an overwhelming majority in both houses of congress and a Republican president, and it would be political suicide to take away benefits from people now that it's been passed. Simply put, as much as the right wing is pouting, the fact is that this bill is not going to be repealed. I'm calling it now, just like I called the exact supreme court ruling 2 years ago.

So looking forward, has the right-wing damaged their cause by playing their cards too strongly during this fight? According to the right-wing machine, America now has a one-size-fits all government-controlled public plan that everyone must participate in. That is apparently the law of the land. So say in 2 years, when other parts of this law start to fall into place, lawmakers push for a non-profit Public Option to compete with private plans in the Health Care Exchanges?

We have health care exchanges now, and people are required to purchase health care from it, wouldn't it be easy to argue that there should be a non-private, non-profit option available? After all, people seemed furious at the idea of being forced to buy a private product, it only seems right to offer a low-cost non-profit alternative. What would the right-wing say about this? Would they call it a socialist plan? Would they call it government-controlled health care? Would they call it a one-size fits all plan? Would they call it anti-capitalist?.........OH WAIT.... They already said all those things. If this debate comes up in two years, the republicans will be assuming that we already have all those things, so what could they possibly say to argue against a public option? The boy who cried wolf.

They said all they could already, there would be nothing left to say about a public option that wasn't already said about this plan as it is. If it turns out that people enjoy the added benefits that come with this plan, and in retrospect they think that the Republicans were exaggerating or lying during this debate (the same way many people feel about the War on Terror and Patriot act), then any arguments the Republicans use will fall on deaf ears.

Suppose a few years after that, a movement grows to have a medicare-for-all or true single-payer system of socialized medicine. What would the Republicans say about that? What would the arguments be against that? That this socialized medicine? That it's single-payer? that it's one-size fits all? oh no...they've been saying that for the last half decade...and the argument doesn't work anymore. According to the Republicans, We got government run socialized medicine back in 2010, so what is there to argue about?


If, as many republicans believe, this is just one step in several steps towards single-payer socialized medicine, then you guys have overplayed your cards in the first round, and you have no arguments left. The public has accepted that we have a government-run socialized medical system, so when these things really come to pass, they all accept it far easier because they are used to it.

Starbuck
07-09-2012, 05:43 PM
You won't get much of an argument from me. All this talk about "he's a socialist" puts the moderate voter off every bit as much as "the rich pay no taxes" does.

Socialist; Democrat; Radical; Boogey Man; pick one. I don't care. Every one is as meaningless as the next.

Obama has succeeded in putting nationalized health care into play, even if Obamacare is repealed. No President will run in the foreseeable future without addressing the issue.

Wei Wu Wei
07-09-2012, 05:56 PM
There's the danger in exaggerating. Let's say Obama wins re-election this November (you can say it's because the voters are foolish or whatever reason you want, but conservatives didn't believe Obama would win the first time and they were wrong, so let's entertain the very real possibility). Let's say the next 4 years go just like the last 4 did: some political types are happy, some political types are upset, overall things are mostly the same, and the world doesn't end and everyone is mostly okay or even happy. Suppose the job growth continues at it's slow but steady pace and the economy is healthy by 2016.

I know this is a wild hypothetical but follow me for the sake of argument: Say in 2016 or 2020, a full blown self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist runs for president. Say he is a vocal class warrior and champion for working people.

What would the Republicans say? "We're going to have a radical leftist socialist President who hates capitalism!!!!"

What would everyone else say? "I thought we had that already for 8 years and it wasn't so terrible..."

This type of exaggeration undermines your own position to argue from.


This example is obviously extremely far-fetched, but it shortly illustrates the example I gave before.

Rockntractor
07-09-2012, 06:03 PM
You have had this explained to you so many times it is getting redundant.
Coconut oil might help your memory, I worry about you little one.

AmPat
07-09-2012, 06:24 PM
You have had this explained to you so many times it is getting redundant.
Coconut oil might help your memory, I worry about you little one.
Wei Widdle Bwain won't even see this as Socialized or bad or unconstitutional,,,,,,,,ever. He will march proudly as a true leftist drone regardless the consequences. He's had too much Kool Aid to resist the reflexive talking points.

JB
07-09-2012, 07:49 PM
Have the Republicans...<snip>Are these your own thoughts or did I miss the link in your OP?

Gina
07-09-2012, 10:18 PM
wouldn't it be easy to argue that there should be a non-private, non-profit option available?

Sure, but in America we do things for profit. That's why we're ahead in inventions and innovation. If no profit is involved, there's no incentive to do a good job. I don't want that from my health care.


If it turns out that people enjoy the added benefits that come with this plan, and in retrospect they think that the Republicans were

...were right about taxes being too high to pay for it and the quality sucking...


"I thought we had that already for 8 years and it wasn't so terrible..."

The unemployment numbers say that will probably not happen. For millions, it IS that terrible.

G'way. Shoo.

Odysseus
07-09-2012, 10:46 PM
I know this is a wild hypothetical but follow me for the sake of argument: Say in 2016 or 2020, a full blown self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist runs for president. Say he is a vocal class warrior and champion for working people.

A vocal class warrior isn't a champion of working people. Impoverishing employers doesn't do workers any good. And let's get rid of the whole "democratic socialist" thing. There is no such thing. Socialism is inherently coercive. There's nothing democratic about it.


What would the Republicans say? "We're going to have a radical leftist socialist President who hates capitalism!!!!"

We have one now, thanks.


Have the Republicans and the right-wing movement in this nation overplayed their hands during the health care debate? Is this a case similar to the "boy who cried wolf"? I submit that they have.

Let's start with what this new health care law is not:
It is not a government health insurance plan that everyone has to buy
It is not a universal system similar to medicare
It is not a system like they have in Canada or France or Cuba
It is not a one-size-fits-all public plan
It is not a single payer system
It is not a socialized health insurance system

However, for the last 3 years, hour after hour, day after day, the right-wing message control machine has been screaming and bleating these claims over and over and over. In fact, they succeeded in entirely saturating the public debate. On every radio station and every cable news network, the debate focused around "socialized medicine" and a "government plan" and so on.

While these absurd claims have worked at scaring a certain subsection of Americans, over time, the effect of these claims has worn off. Now, this health care bill is the law of the land. It has passed all three branches of government: the congress passed it, the president signed it, and the supreme court has ruled that it is constitutional.

In order for this bill to be repealed, it would require an overwhelming majority in both houses of congress and a Republican president, and it would be political suicide to take away benefits from people now that it's been passed. Simply put, as much as the right wing is pouting, the fact is that this bill is not going to be repealed. I'm calling it now, just like I called the exact supreme court ruling 2 years ago.

So looking forward, has the right-wing damaged their cause by playing their cards too strongly during this fight? According to the right-wing machine, America now has a one-size-fits all government-controlled public plan that everyone must participate in. That is apparently the law of the land. So say in 2 years, when other parts of this law start to fall into place, lawmakers push for a non-profit Public Option to compete with private plans in the Health Care Exchanges?

We have health care exchanges now, and people are required to purchase health care from it, wouldn't it be easy to argue that there should be a non-private, non-profit option available? After all, people seemed furious at the idea of being forced to buy a private product, it only seems right to offer a low-cost non-profit alternative. What would the right-wing say about this? Would they call it a socialist plan? Would they call it government-controlled health care? Would they call it a one-size fits all plan? Would they call it anti-capitalist?.........OH WAIT.... They already said all those things. If this debate comes up in two years, the republicans will be assuming that we already have all those things, so what could they possibly say to argue against a public option? The boy who cried wolf.

They said all they could already, there would be nothing left to say about a public option that wasn't already said about this plan as it is. If it turns out that people enjoy the added benefits that come with this plan, and in retrospect they think that the Republicans were exaggerating or lying during this debate (the same way many people feel about the War on Terror and Patriot act), then any arguments the Republicans use will fall on deaf ears.

Suppose a few years after that, a movement grows to have a medicare-for-all or true single-payer system of socialized medicine. What would the Republicans say about that? What would the arguments be against that? That this socialized medicine? That it's single-payer? that it's one-size fits all? oh no...they've been saying that for the last half decade...and the argument doesn't work anymore. According to the Republicans, We got government run socialized medicine back in 2010, so what is there to argue about?


If, as many republicans believe, this is just one step in several steps towards single-payer socialized medicine, then you guys have overplayed your cards in the first round, and you have no arguments left. The public has accepted that we have a government-run socialized medical system, so when these things really come to pass, they all accept it far easier because they are used to it.

As I've said before, for someone who claims to dislike this law, you spend a tremendous amount of time trying to defend it. Regardless, it's not about healthcare, in the sense that it doesn't reform anything. What it does do is add multiple layers of bureaucracy to an already overburdened system. If it were really about healthcare, then Obama's cronies wouldn't be lining up for waivers. So, let's get over that. It's not about healthcare, it's about imposing control on formerly free people.

We now return you to your delusions.

Retread
07-09-2012, 11:23 PM
We need the link where you stole this wee-wee

Rockntractor
07-09-2012, 11:36 PM
We need the link where you stole this wee-wee

This may actually be his, or something his handlers gave him. It isn't published anywhere on the web.

txradioguy
07-10-2012, 01:58 AM
It is not a government health insurance plan that everyone has to buy


Then why are people going to be taxed...errr...penalized monitarily if they don't buy it?



It is not a universal system similar to medicare


Then why to make Obamacare work does the Medicaid program in each state have to be expanded?

Starbuck
07-10-2012, 08:19 AM
Regardless of how any particular voter may feel about Obamacare, those who decry the need for national health care are destined to fail. It will happen one way or another.

And I think it will remain bloody and messy; perhaps even forever. If we run an Every-Man-For-Himself candidate (my choice) he will lose the voters to the left. Run a single payer candidate and he loses the right.

America has always had an open door policy with regard to some health care. That's why Mexicans walk across the desert to have their babies in Phoenix. And that's why we scoop up all the gang members who are shot and stabbed every Saturday night and operate on them. Is all that socialist? I don't know. Doesn't matter, either, because it is the right thing to do.

Obama knows that, and he wants to charge everyone. But his program goes way, way too far.

Unreconstructed Reb
07-10-2012, 11:12 AM
In reality, both parties are pro-socialist in order to maintain their control and status as the permanent political class. It is the only explanation for the continued move towards collectivism and the welfare state regardless of which party is in power.

The main difference between the two parties is that the Rats are openly vocal about their socialist/communist leanings as has been expressed by many members of the congressional left and The One. The repubs are content to remain in the closet.

NJCardFan
07-10-2012, 11:35 AM
That's why Mexicans walk across the desert to have their babies in Phoenix.

Not to nitpick but it's more Tucson, Nogales, Sierra Vista and other points south. Phoenix is a long walk from the border.

Unreconstructed Reb
07-10-2012, 12:37 PM
Regardless of how any particular voter may feel about Obamacare, those who decry the need for national health care are destined to fail. It will happen one way or another.

And I think it will remain bloody and messy; perhaps even forever. If we run an Every-Man-For-Himself candidate (my choice) he will lose the voters to the left. Run a single payer candidate and he loses the right.

America has always had an open door policy with regard to some health care. That's why Mexicans walk across the desert to have their babies in Phoenix. And that's why we scoop up all the gang members who are shot and stabbed every Saturday night and operate on them. Is all that socialist? I don't know. Doesn't matter, either, because it is the right thing to do.

Obama knows that, and he wants to charge everyone. But his program goes way, way too far.

So you're saying that I'm responsible for the cost of border jumpers flooding our hospitals and gang bangers popping caps in each other? Au contraire, sir. I have no responsibility for any other person on earth just as no other person on earth has responsibility for me. This is a lesson that I don't expect you libtards to ever grasp.

txradioguy
07-10-2012, 12:50 PM
This is a lesson that I don't expect you libtards to ever grasp.

Hold up n00b...Show some respect for Conservative posters that have been here longer than you...and will still be here after you're sorry ass is banned if you keep calling members here a Libtard without any proof.

txradioguy
07-10-2012, 12:52 PM
In reality, both parties are pro-socialist in order to maintain their control and status as the permanent political class. It is the only explanation for the continued move towards collectivism and the welfare state regardless of which party is in power.

The main difference between the two parties is that the Rats are openly vocal about their socialist/communist leanings as has been expressed by many members of the congressional left and The One. The repubs are content to remain in the closet.

Oh God here we go...

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001639345/135329226_conspiracy_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg

Let me guess...in your opinion the only hope America has is to get behind Ron Paul?

Starbuck
07-10-2012, 02:12 PM
So you're saying that I'm responsible for the cost of border jumpers flooding our hospitals and gang bangers popping caps in each other? Au contraire, sir. I have no responsibility for any other person on earth just as no other person on earth has responsibility for me. This is a lesson that I don't expect you libtards to ever grasp.
Jeez. Where did that come from?

You thought I said you were responsible for ..........something(?). No. I said Mexican illegals jump the border to have their babies over here, and I believe that to be a fact. And I believe if a pregnant woman shows up at a hospital in America or some unidentified person shows up shot, beat up, or run over then they should be taken care of.

That is me speaking my mind. If watching me speak my mind irritates you, then you should put me on your ignore list. That would be just a whole lot more intelligent than calling me names.:smile-new:

Retread
07-10-2012, 03:19 PM
Jeez. Where did that come from?

....................................

That is me speaking my mind. If watching me speak my mind irritates you, then you should put me on your ignore list. That would be just a whole lot more intelligent than calling me names.:smile-new:

I don't know fer sur but maybe the /sarcasm/ flag should have been set on some of that original post? Or that was at least the way I read it. The dims want the "rich" (those with a job) to pay for everybody else including illegals etc.

Starbuck
07-10-2012, 03:37 PM
I don't know fer sur but maybe the /sarcasm/ flag should have been set on some of that original post? Or that was at least the way I read it. The dims want the "rich" (those with a job) to pay for everybody else including illegals etc.

Yeah. I'm glad you put the quotations around "rich", because to a liberal, the "rich" is always someone they don't know, and the "rich" don't pay taxes. The fact that 5% of income earners pay over 50% of all income taxes never even slows them down.

If the rich didn't pay taxes, then Denise Rich, whose husband was pardoned by Clinton on his last day, would not have renounced her American citizenship. Which she did - to escape paying taxes. Same with Eduardo Saverin, the co-founder of Facebook. Abandoned their American citizenships to avoid taxes - an option not open to me, or probably you.

Going back to health care. We can't abandoned injured and child bearing people. We simply have to give them help. The idea, I think, is to limit the assistance they are going to receive to the point that it begins to hurt, and we ain't even close to that now. We give them diapers, long term assistance, cell phones, you name it. And I have no idea how were going to get that egg back in the shell..........I guess we never will.:blue:

Wei Wu Wei
07-10-2012, 03:43 PM
Oh God here we go...

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/001639345/135329226_conspiracy_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg

Let me guess...in your opinion the only hope America has is to get behind Ron Paul?

Which Republican has been this mythical small-government figure that conservatives seem obsessed with?

Is Romney your true small-government no-nonsense conservative? Was McCain that guy for you? Was George W Bush the small government true conservative? Was his father? How about Reagan? Even Reagan vastly expanded federal spending and granted amnesty to illegal immigrants.

Why is it that when conservatives criticize The Party, a storm of shrills comes out trying to shout him down? I mean, I understand party loyalty to some degree, but come on.

Answer this: What values or principles of Conservatism as you define it, does the modern Republican party represent? Not just in rhetoric, either, through actions and policies.

I'll start with one: They are not Boogyman Hussein Obama and the Demoncrats hiss hisss.

okay besides that, what do they actually do that represents your values?

Starbuck
07-10-2012, 04:04 PM
............Answer this: What values or principles of Conservatism as you define it, does the modern Republican party represent?............

Damn near none. And that's a problem. But re-electing Obama is by far a worse thing than voting for someone with whom I have some basic disagreement. Disagreeing is one thing; being scared shitless is another. And I am scared shitless of Obama.

Let's face it (as you said): My platform is just not going to be voted in. But I sure as hell ain't going over to the left because of that!

Wei Wu Wei
07-10-2012, 04:12 PM
Damn near none. And that's a problem. But re-electing Obama is by far a worse thing than voting for someone with whom I have some basic disagreement. Disagreeing is one thing; being scared shitless is another. And I am scared shitless of Obama.

Let's face it (as you said): My platform is just not going to be voted in. But I sure as hell ain't going over to the left because of that!

The Democrats wouldn't do much different than the Republicans. Since Obama has been in office he's kept the Bush economic team, continued Bush's tax cuts and economic policies, extended the Patriot Act, expanded the wars in the middle east, passed a health care plan that was thought up and supported by Republicans (for this one I have a link and quote: http://mittromneycentral.com/resources/romneycare/


These days many conservatives dislike the use of a healthcare mandate to expand insurance coverage. But it wasn’t always this way.

In fact, the very idea of an individual healthcare mandate originated from the conservative think-tank The Heritage Foundation. But don’t take my word for it, read about it here.

Moreover, many prominent conservatives have supported the use of the individual healthcare mandate. Some noteworthy conservatives who have supported individual healthcare mandates are:

-President George H. W. Bush (source 1 and source 2)
-Speaker Newt Gingrich R-GA (source)
-Senator Orrin Hatch R-UT (source)
-Senator Charles Grassley R-Iowa (source)
-Senator Bob Bennett R-UT (source)
-Senator Christopher Bond R-Missouri (source)
-Senator John Chafee R-RI (source)
-Rep. Bill Thomas R-CA (source)
-And at least 16 other GOP Senators who have since retired from the Senate (source)

Actually, in 1993 when then-President Clinton was attempting to reform healthcare, Republicans who opposed Clinton’s idea of an employer mandate, supported the idea of an individual mandate. An individual mandate, the Republicans argued, would be a “free-market solution” to reform healthcare, part of a “social contract” that would help people take responsibility for themselves and avoid the immorality of freeloading off the government. Clinton’s plan, on the other hand, was seen as a “true government take-over” of healthcare, the worst form of the dreaded “socialized medicine.”


I don't understand what sort of radical turn conservatives are afraid of from Obama. As far as I can tell, by his actions, Obama has followed a fairly Republican agenda.

That doesn't mean you have to vote for Obama, of course. I don't want to vote for Obama either, but there's no need to make up fantasies about it. It's just a party ploy by the GOP to get support.

Retread
07-10-2012, 06:40 PM
GAWD!!! Let's hope it works!!!

Starbuck
07-10-2012, 06:44 PM
......................I don't understand what sort of radical turn conservatives are afraid of from Obama. As far as I can tell, by his actions, Obama has followed a fairly Republican agenda..........

We don't think so. We don't think the Republicans would have used the underhanded, but book-legal tactics that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi used to ram Obamacare through. And they wouldn't, I dare say, have paraded across the street with an in-your-face oversized gavel, and they wouldn't have falsely accused protesting citizens of spitting and calling names.
Those are Democrats. They are nasty, self assured, control freaks. They saw that the American people did not want their health care plan, but they rammed it through anyway.
Bill Clinton didn't do that. He moderated his position (but not, unfortunately, his behavior) when his party was handed its hat in '94.

Unreconstructed Reb
07-10-2012, 06:47 PM
Hold up n00b...Show some respect for Conservative posters that have been here longer than you...and will still be here after you're sorry ass is banned if you keep calling members here a Libtard without any proof.

A noob to a website does not equate to a noob in life. In addition, a high post count doesn't necessarily earn 'respect' as a conservative when that poster puts up the same kind of dribble that a bonafide libtard would post.

Now, if you have a problem with my reply, hit the report button and get my 'sorry ass' banned. I'm sure that you'll puff your little chest up and feeeeeeeeeeeeel all better about yourself.

:asshole:

Unreconstructed Reb
07-10-2012, 06:54 PM
Jeez. Where did that come from?

You thought I said you were responsible for ..........something(?). No. I said Mexican illegals jump the border to have their babies over here, and I believe that to be a fact. And I believe if a pregnant woman shows up at a hospital in America or some unidentified person shows up shot, beat up, or run over then they should be taken care of.

That is me speaking my mind. If watching me speak my mind irritates you, then you should put me on your ignore list. That would be just a whole lot more intelligent than calling me names.:smile-new:


From your post: "America has always had an open door policy with regard to some health care. That's why Mexicans walk across the desert to have their babies in Phoenix. And that's why we scoop up all the gang members who are shot and stabbed every Saturday night and operate on them. Is all that socialist? I don't know. Doesn't matter, either, because it is the right thing to do."

See specifically the part in RED. It is NOT the 'right thing to do' to make me or any other taxpayer responsible for the health care of anybody other than whom I choose to be responsible for. That is a socialist frame of mind and I do not adhere to it, nor should any conservative.

ThinkingBig
07-10-2012, 07:07 PM
You have had this explained to you so many times it is getting redundant.
Coconut oil might help your memory, I worry about you little one.


Oh, just for shits and giggles, give us the Fox News/WND talking points.:evil-grin:

Rockntractor
07-10-2012, 07:09 PM
Oh, just for shits and giggles, give us the Fox News/WND talking points.:evil-grin:

You are a banana shy of a whole bunch.

NJCardFan
07-10-2012, 07:15 PM
Oh, just for shits and giggles, give us the Fox News/WND talking points.:evil-grin:

I have never seen anyone work with such vigor to add nothing to the conversation as you do.

Starbuck
07-10-2012, 08:44 PM
From your post: "America has always had an open door policy with regard to some health care. That's why Mexicans walk across the desert to have their babies in Phoenix. And that's why we scoop up all the gang members who are shot and stabbed every Saturday night and operate on them. Is all that socialist? I don't know. Doesn't matter, either, because it is the right thing to do."

See specifically the part in RED. It is NOT the 'right thing to do' to make me or any other taxpayer responsible for the health care of anybody other than whom I choose to be responsible for. That is a socialist frame of mind and I do not adhere to it, nor should any conservative.
Just cause you can write in red doesn't mean you have given the issue any serious thought.:star:

You pay for education through your taxes. I do, too. Do you have kids in school? No? Then by your standards you should not be forced to pay for education, should you? That, by your definition, is socialist! Only those parents with kids in school should pay for education, you say.

See, the part you don't get is that life is a team sport. If you would like to kick to the curb all pregnant, uncovered women, all unidentified victims of crime or abuse, then be my guest. But you will be alone, just the same as if you tried to get only those with children to pay for education.

Congratulations on your fierce independence! How's it working for you?:biggrin-new::biggrin-new:

txradioguy
07-11-2012, 07:46 AM
A noob to a website does not equate to a noob in life. In addition, a high post count doesn't necessarily earn 'respect' as a conservative when that poster puts up the same kind of dribble that a bonafide libtard would post.

No...but a n00b anywhere doesn't have the right to come in and immediately shit on the rug or start accusing other...longer term members of being something they clearly aren't.

Which is exactly what you've done. Starbuck isn't a Lib...buyt you definately smell of being a troll.


Now, if you have a problem with my reply, hit the report button and get my 'sorry ass' banned. I'm sure that you'll puff your little chest up and feeeeeeeeeeeeel all better about yourself.

I prefer to deal with idiots like you myself. Give you enough rope and you'll hang youself.

Right now you're off to a good start on that.


:asshole:

When it comes to forum trolls like you...I take that as a compliment.

txradioguy
07-11-2012, 07:48 AM
I have never seen anyone work with such vigor to add nothing to the conversation as you do.

That's because Spicoli is nothing more than an:

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/347/081/c6b.jpg

Starbuck
07-11-2012, 08:59 AM
The only real, absolutely pure, I-only-look out-for-myself independent I can think of was the fictional Jeremiah Johnson. It made a truly great movie, but Johnson has no place in society. As Wee Wee points out, all of us avail ourselves of societies fruits.

The trick is to send the message out to the legislature that they have gone far enough, and all this "Socialist" talk serves the same purpose as all the non citizen talk in that it puts off the real voters in the middle who count.

Unreconstructed Reb
07-11-2012, 09:44 AM
Just cause you can write in red doesn't mean you have given the issue any serious thought.:star:

You pay for education through your taxes. I do, too. Do you have kids in school? No? Then by your standards you should not be forced to pay for education, should you? That, by your definition, is socialist! Only those parents with kids in school should pay for education, you say.

See, the part you don't get is that life is a team sport. If you would like to kick to the curb all pregnant, uncovered women, all unidentified victims of crime or abuse, then be my guest. But you will be alone, just the same as if you tried to get only those with children to pay for education.

Congratulations on your fierce independence! How's it working for you?:biggrin-new::biggrin-new:

I've been giving serious thought to socialism/communism most of my adult life, pal, and, by the above post, it would appear that it's you that hasn't given much conservative thought to the issues.

For instance, public education. It would appear that you're unaware that public education is the 10th Plank of the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels in 1848: "Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production." (Like the color?)

So, life is a 'team sport', eh. Takes a village and all that rubbish. It would appear that you're advocating collectivism. Interesting points of view coming from a so called conservative. Maybe you're one of those big government, big spending 'compassionate conservatives'.

See, the part that you don't get is that life is an individual sport. I can choose to go it alone or form a compact with others which will ultimately be for my benefit. But the bottom line is that it's my life and I will not live it for any other man or ask any other man to live his for me. (thank you Ayn Rand. RIP) Now, you've decided to side with the government backed collectivists and demand that I join your group and use my money to pay for your groups compassionate causes. That is not conservatism. That is liberalism/progressivism at it's core. Let's get back to your talking points:

Education. If you want your kids educated you should pay for it. For instance, I have several friends that home school their kids and they don't come to me with their hands out demanding that I help pay for their children's education. If you can't home school then hire a tutor but don't ask me to pay for it.

Pregnant women. If I didn't get them pregnant then it's not my responsibility to provide for their or their children's health and welfare. If you 'compassionate' types want to provide for these people then form a private charity just for that purpose.

Fierce independence is precisely what made America. It would appear that you scoff at the notion. You may call yourself a conservative but you definitely have liberal/progressive leanings, based on your above response.

I have several reading suggestions for you:
Declaration of Independence
United States Constitution
The Federalist Papers
The Communist Manifesto
Atlas Shrugged
A Constitutional History of Secession

Unreconstructed Reb
07-11-2012, 09:49 AM
No...but a n00b anywhere doesn't have the right to come in and immediately shit on the rug or start accusing other...longer term members of being something they clearly aren't.

Which is exactly what you've done. Starbuck isn't a Lib...buyt you definately smell of being a troll.



I prefer to deal with idiots like you myself. Give you enough rope and you'll hang youself.

Right now you're off to a good start on that.



When it comes to forum trolls like you...I take that as a compliment.

When Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson try to deflect an issue they scream RACIST!!!!

When an internet forum junkie can't formulate a cohesive, rational response to an argument they scream TROLL!!!!

Congratulations.

Starbuck
07-11-2012, 09:50 AM
................Education. If you want your kids educated you should pay for it......
A Nitwit's position, one that does not exist in America, and for that matter would destroy America if it did exist. The worst thing that could happen to you or the rest of us is that all your dreams would come true. You're a lunatic, with no real ideas.

Arroyo_Doble
07-11-2012, 09:52 AM
How cool. A real live Objectivist. Rare. Most people grow out of that philosophy around the age of 3.

Unreconstructed Reb
07-11-2012, 10:24 AM
The only real, absolutely pure, I-only-look out-for-myself independent I can think of was the fictional Jeremiah Johnson. It made a truly great movie, but Johnson has no place in society. As Wee Wee points out, all of us avail ourselves of societies fruits.

The trick is to send the message out to the legislature that they have gone far enough, and all this "Socialist" talk serves the same purpose as all the non citizen talk in that it puts off the real voters in the middle who count.

Jeremiah Johnson was based on a real person: http://askville.amazon.com/true-life-story-man--Jeremiah-Johnson/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=30843540 (He was independent but he formed compacts with others, by his choice, when it was to his benefit.)

America was based on the ideal of individual liberty, autonomy, free will and the power and right to self determination. The trend towards socialism is in direct opposition to our foundation and it needs to be in the forefront of every political debate. What's going on now is the final battle between individualism vs collectivism. I really don't think that you fully understand the situation, or, you do understand and you're a collectivist.

"Individual Rights are not subject to a public vote; the majority has no right to vote away the Rights of the minority; the political function of Rights is precisely to protect minorities from all oppression by the majorities [and the Smallest Minority on Earth is the Individual."]---Ayn Rand

Middle voters a just fence sitters; they don't really care about the issues, they just want to be popular and they'll go along with anything, including a massive government and loss of individual liberty in order to be popular. That was proven in the 2008 election.

Unreconstructed Reb
07-11-2012, 10:34 AM
A Nitwit's position, one that does not exist in America, and for that matter would destroy America if it did exist. The worst thing that could happen to you or the rest of us is that all your dreams would come true. You're a lunatic, with no real ideas.

Government funded public education, a communists position, one that does, sadly, exist in America and is, in fact, destroying America even as we speak.

My dream is strict constitutionalism, the reduction of the federal government to it's constitutionally stated purpose, emphasis being shifted away from this collectivist trend and back towards individual liberty and self choice. I guess to a collectivist, such as yourself, that would be the worst thing that could happen and I'd rather be a 'lunatic with no real ideas' than in your collectivist/progressive camp any day.

Unreconstructed Reb
07-11-2012, 10:44 AM
How cool. A real live Objectivist. Rare. Most people grow out of that philosophy around the age of 3.

Mighty bold of you to put your ignorance on display in such a public fashion.

txradioguy
07-11-2012, 10:50 AM
When Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson try to deflect an issue they scream RACIST!!!!

No that's the entire Democrat Party. But you're close.


When an internet forum junkie can't formulate a cohesive, rational response to an argument they scream TROLL!!!!

And 100%'ers and Ron Paul cult followers like you who run across anyone who doesn't buy into their stupidity immediately scream "LIBTARD".

See this is what makes you look like a complete ass on this. I've got five years of as you put it "cohesive, rational reaponses" to every kind of forum poster that shows up here...fellow Conservative...Libtard mouthbreather...filthy Ron Paul cult follower and trolls like you.

What I've learned over the years...is not to waste time an effort on those that are either...idiots or ones that come in here and act like they are the only true "Conservative" alive and if we unwashed masses don't agree 100% with you then we're Libs.

Which is what you did to Starbuck.

In short...I have zero tolerance for finger pointing trolls who are so busy accusing others they don't stop and recon where they are at before they just spouting stupid shit.

Getting the picture now?

Pick a topic n00b...I'll be happy to debate you. It's not like I'm gonna be scared or anything.


Congratulations.

:rolleyes:

txradioguy
07-11-2012, 10:51 AM
Mighty bold of you to put your ignorance on display in such a public fashion.

He's a contrarian. Give him 5 minutes and he'll have a completely different opinion on the same thing.

Odysseus
07-11-2012, 11:38 AM
How cool. A real live Objectivist. Rare. Most people grow out of that philosophy around the age of 3.

Not really. Objectivism appeals to teens and young adults. Socialism is the doctrine of choice for children who expect the world to do everything for them.

However, the Objectivists do have a valid point about the limitations of government. We accept, for example, that a state-sponsored and controlled church is a bad thing, but we also accept state-controlled schools. Doesn't the thought of the state dictating curricula for the nation's children disturb you at all?

Most of what we now take for granted as public school was quite different back in the day. The basics of education were provided by a community that would pool resources to hire a teacher and provide a schoolhouse. The larger the community, the more resources were pooled, so there had to be a means of managing them, which led to school boards. However, the overwhelming majority of schools were either private or locally run. It's only with the advent of public employees' unions over the last several decades that education had migrated to the state and federal level, as having a central budgeting agency simplifies collective bargaining. This is not, however, conducive to ensuring that kids get the education that their parents pay for, but it's great for the union staff.

Unreconstructed Reb
07-11-2012, 11:41 AM
No that's the entire Democrat Party. But you're close.



And 100%'ers and Ron Paul cult followers like you who run across anyone who doesn't buy into their stupidity immediately scream "LIBTARD".

See this is what makes you look like a complete ass on this. I've got five years of as you put it "cohesive, rational reaponses" to every kind of forum poster that shows up here...fellow Conservative...Libtard mouthbreather...filthy Ron Paul cult follower and trolls like you.

What I've learned over the years...is not to waste time an effort on those that are either...idiots or ones that come in here and act like they are the only true "Conservative" alive and if we unwashed masses don't agree 100% with you then we're Libs.

Which is what you did to Starbuck.

In short...I have zero tolerance for finger pointing trolls who are so busy accusing others they don't stop and recon where they are at before they just spouting stupid shit.

Getting the picture now?

Pick a topic n00b...I'll be happy to debate you. It's not like I'm gonna be scared or anything.





:rolleyes:

Thanks for making my case.

"Pick a topic n00b...I'll be happy to debate you."

If the replies that you've submitted to me so far are indicative of your 'debating skills' it would be a total waste of time.

(FWIW, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, Niki Haley, Fred Thompson, Rick Perry, etc are more to my liking.)

Unreconstructed Reb
07-11-2012, 12:04 PM
Not really. Objectivism appeals to teens and young adults. Socialism is the doctrine of choice for children who expect the world to do everything for them.

However, the Objectivists do have a valid point about the limitations of government. We accept, for example, that a state-sponsored and controlled church is a bad thing, but we also accept state-controlled schools. Doesn't the thought of the state dictating curricula for the nation's children disturb you at all?

Most of what we now take for granted as public school was quite different back in the day. The basics of education were provided by a community that would pool resources to hire a teacher and provide a schoolhouse. The larger the community, the more resources were pooled, so there had to be a means of managing them, which led to school boards. However, the overwhelming majority of schools were either private or locally run. It's only with the advent of public employees' unions over the last several decades that education had migrated to the state and federal level, as having a central budgeting agency simplifies collective bargaining. This is not, however, conducive to ensuring that kids get the education that their parents pay for, but it's great for the union staff.

The tragedy that has become our once great country is that not only have a large segment of the population accepted federal control of institutions such as education, they are now demanding even more federal control, e.g. 0bamacare. There's nothing more that I want to see than the defeat of 0vomit in November but i'm highly skeptical that any significant rollback of federal control will occur even if the repubs win the Oval Office and both houses of congress. The Tenth Amendment, the one tool in the Constitutional toolkit that could keep the federal government in check, was de facto repealed on April 9, 1865 and I don't think that it will ever be reinstated. Too much is at stake for the ruling class to allow state and individual sovereignty.

ETA: Sadly, we are rapidly becoming 'subjects' of the Ivy League elitist ruling class. Individual liberty and self determinism have been happily traded away for 'security'. Our nation was founded on the principle that governments derive all of their just powers from "the consent of the governed" but as we've seen through the travesty of 0bamacare 'We the People' are becoming irrelevant in the political discourse.

Molon Labe
07-11-2012, 12:26 PM
Have the Republicans and the right-wing movement in this nation overplayed their hands during the health care debate? Is this a case similar to the "boy who cried wolf"? I submit that they have.

Let's start with what this new health care law is not:
It is not a government health insurance plan that everyone has to buy
It is not a universal system similar to medicare
It is not a system like they have in Canada or France or Cuba
It is not a one-size-fits-all public plan
It is not a single payer system
It is not a socialized health insurance system

.

It is a step in all those directions. Once everyone is dependant on the Federal system to solve this issue and the structure rots, socialism is complete.

You've read Marx...you understand.

Pure Dialectics.

Arroyo_Doble
07-11-2012, 01:46 PM
It is a step in all those directions. Once everyone is dependant on the Federal system to solve this issue and the structure rots, socialism is complete.

You've read Marx...you understand.

Pure Dialectics.

If the alternative was so effective (the quasi-anarchist model), why don't we have it now?

Retread
07-11-2012, 01:53 PM
If the alternative was so effective (the quasi-anarchist model), why don't we have it now?

Because the lefty guvmint (dim and GOP) have been fighting it for over a century and a half.

Arroyo_Doble
07-11-2012, 02:02 PM
Because the lefty guvmint (dim and GOP) have been fighting it for over a century and a half.

We are a (small d) democratic society. Our government is us.

Retread
07-11-2012, 02:13 PM
Our guvmint isn't us and hasn't been for several decades. It's the 'buy votes' guvmint. Were it still what is was designed to be I would not find it necessary to find a place to vent such as this one. You can take your worthless hide and move to Russia, China or any of those places who believe as you do.

I'll sit here and watch vermin like you slowly push what was once a great country into the toilet.

Arroyo_Doble
07-11-2012, 02:17 PM
Our guvmint isn't us and hasn't been for several decades. It's the 'buy votes' guvmint.

Well, Citizen's United should solve that.

Molon Labe
07-11-2012, 02:32 PM
If the alternative was so effective (the quasi-anarchist model), why don't we have it now?

Anarchist? I'm talking people wanting more "freedom". I don't really believe people want that anymore.

The reason we don't have minarchy is because of what Bastiat said. When people can vote for more of other peoples things, human nature says they will.... all the way to oblivion. Human beings look for ways to make things less painful. I'm more than willing to let you pick up the bill, especially when the law gives me the authority to make you.

The problem is the system eventually collapses and leads to totalitarianism. Something socialists are too childlike in their belief systems to see.

Molon Labe
07-11-2012, 02:34 PM
We are a (small d) democratic society. Our government is us.

You keep on believing that. :rolleyes:

I'd say our federal government is closer to a bunch of Sociopathic kleptocrats

Molon Labe
07-11-2012, 02:37 PM
Government funded public education, a communists position, one that does, sadly, exist in America and is, in fact, destroying America even as we speak.

My dream is strict constitutionalism, the reduction of the federal government to it's constitutionally stated purpose, emphasis being shifted away from this collectivist trend and back towards individual liberty and self choice. I guess to a collectivist, such as yourself, that would be the worst thing that could happen and I'd rather be a 'lunatic with no real ideas' than in your collectivist/progressive camp any day.


Couldn't say so better myself.

Jim54
07-11-2012, 03:39 PM
Have the Republicans and the right-wing movement in this nation overplayed their hands during the health care debate? Is this a case similar to the "boy who cried wolf"? I submit that they have.

Let's start with what this new health care law is not:
It is not a government health insurance plan that everyone has to buy
It is not a universal system similar to medicare
It is not a system like they have in Canada or France or Cuba
It is not a one-size-fits-all public plan
It is not a single payer system
It is not a socialized health insurance system

However, for the last 3 years, hour after hour, day after day, the right-wing message control machine has been screaming and bleating these claims over and over and over. In fact, they succeeded in entirely saturating the public debate. On every radio station and every cable news network, the debate focused around "socialized medicine" and a "government plan" and so on.

While these absurd claims have worked at scaring a certain subsection of Americans, over time, the effect of these claims has worn off. Now, this health care bill is the law of the land. It has passed all three branches of government: the congress passed it, the president signed it, and the supreme court has ruled that it is constitutional.

In order for this bill to be repealed, it would require an overwhelming majority in both houses of congress and a Republican president, and it would be political suicide to take away benefits from people now that it's been passed. Simply put, as much as the right wing is pouting, the fact is that this bill is not going to be repealed. I'm calling it now, just like I called the exact supreme court ruling 2 years ago.

So looking forward, has the right-wing damaged their cause by playing their cards too strongly during this fight? According to the right-wing machine, America now has a one-size-fits all government-controlled public plan that everyone must participate in. That is apparently the law of the land. So say in 2 years, when other parts of this law start to fall into place, lawmakers push for a non-profit Public Option to compete with private plans in the Health Care Exchanges?

We have health care exchanges now, and people are required to purchase health care from it, wouldn't it be easy to argue that there should be a non-private, non-profit option available? After all, people seemed furious at the idea of being forced to buy a private product, it only seems right to offer a low-cost non-profit alternative. What would the right-wing say about this? Would they call it a socialist plan? Would they call it government-controlled health care? Would they call it a one-size fits all plan? Would they call it anti-capitalist?.........OH WAIT.... They already said all those things. If this debate comes up in two years, the republicans will be assuming that we already have all those things, so what could they possibly say to argue against a public option? The boy who cried wolf.

They said all they could already, there would be nothing left to say about a public option that wasn't already said about this plan as it is. If it turns out that people enjoy the added benefits that come with this plan, and in retrospect they think that the Republicans were exaggerating or lying during this debate (the same way many people feel about the War on Terror and Patriot act), then any arguments the Republicans use will fall on deaf ears.

Suppose a few years after that, a movement grows to have a medicare-for-all or true single-payer system of socialized medicine. What would the Republicans say about that? What would the arguments be against that? That this socialized medicine? That it's single-payer? that it's one-size fits all? oh no...they've been saying that for the last half decade...and the argument doesn't work anymore. According to the Republicans, We got government run socialized medicine back in 2010, so what is there to argue about?


If, as many republicans believe, this is just one step in several steps towards single-payer socialized medicine, then you guys have overplayed your cards in the first round, and you have no arguments left. The public has accepted that we have a government-run socialized medical system, so when these things really come to pass, they all accept it far easier because they are used to it.



And it is true.The ACA is just the first salvo in a long range plan to destroy private insurance carriers and drive all of us into the arms of the government via single payer. Get ready to have teeth like the Brits! Think of the budget and power that an agency responsible for 350 million people's medical care would possess. Makes a DU'er like yourself swoon, doesn't it?


Incidentally, your user name means: action without action. Not very appropriate given your ringing endorsement of government overreach. In fact, Wei wu Wei said this:

"The more rules you make, the more thieves are created." and this:

"The world can be ruled by letting things run their course; it cannot be ruled by interfering"


Leftists are control freaks pure and simple. They cannot rest knowing that people are out there somewhere living as they please. At least be honest about what you are.

Starbuck
07-11-2012, 03:51 PM
...............Leftists are control freaks pure and simple. They cannot rest knowing that people are out there somewhere living as they please..............
I've been saying the same thing for years.

And control freaks become teachers, journalists, politicians and attorneys. They become a lot of other things, too, but it seems to me they gravitate toward those professions.

txradioguy
07-11-2012, 04:13 PM
Thanks for making my case.

Of course I am. :rolleyes:


"Pick a topic n00b...I'll be happy to debate you."

If the replies that you've submitted to me so far are indicative of your 'debating skills' it would be a total waste of time.

So I'll take that as a no about engaging in rational intelligent debate? You'll just continue to call people Libtards that disagree with your political view? Gotcha.


(FWIW, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, Niki Haley, Fred Thompson, Rick Perry, etc are more to my liking.)

And they are the favorites of 99.9% of the people here...myself included.

Oh and they are choices of the same person you called a Libtard.

BadCat
07-11-2012, 04:49 PM
Oh, just for shits and giggles, give us the Fox News/WND talking points.:evil-grin:

You're not worth the effort, faggot.

m00
07-11-2012, 08:30 PM
Which Republican has been this mythical small-government figure that conservatives seem obsessed with?

Oh, they're in every primary. But the GOP establishment + media + special interests doesn't let them win the nomination. This election season there's actually quite a battle for the future of the party/platform going on behind the scenes. I wish I could have an honest conversation with you about it.

Rockntractor
07-11-2012, 08:35 PM
It is interesting how when someones candidate can't get more than 5% in the primaries it is always a conspiracy and this person should some how be forced on the other 95% because they don't know what is good for them.

m00
07-11-2012, 08:41 PM
If the alternative was so effective (the quasi-anarchist model), why don't we have it now?

The trend of all civilizations is towards tyranny. Evil men play a longer game.

m00
07-11-2012, 08:42 PM
It is interesting how when someones candidate can't get more than 5% in the primaries it is always a conspiracy and this person should some how be forced on the other 95% because they don't know what is good for them.

Who is those post referring to, btw?

Rockntractor
07-11-2012, 08:43 PM
Who is those post referring to, btw?

What's the matter Velveeta, are your ears itching?

m00
07-11-2012, 08:49 PM
What's the matter Velveeta, are your ears itching?

I was just trying to follow the conversation on thread. Makes it hard when people respond without using a quote button. :)

Starbuck
07-11-2012, 09:03 PM
Oh, they're in every primary. But the GOP establishment + media + special interests doesn't let them win the nomination. This election season there's actually quite a battle for the future of the party/platform going on behind the scenes. I wish I could have an honest conversation with you about it.

They ARE in every primary! It just kills me! The right people (Dare I mention Cain?) come out and they are just cremated by the press and the pundits. I saw Juan Williams demonstrating real befuddlement when he said that "for some reason" conservative voters like Herman Cain. Like he couldn't figure it out!

So we'll hold our noses and vote for Romney, and hope that maybe we are wrong about his resolve and determination. Maybe he will take the runaway bull that is Washington and dig his heels in and wrestle that sumbitch to the ground. Maybe.

Because Barry has given spurs to that bull, and it is running hard.:blue:

m00
07-11-2012, 09:10 PM
They ARE in every primary! It just kills me! The right people (Dare I mention Cain?) come out and they are just cremated by the press and the pundits. I saw Juan Williams demonstrating real befuddlement when he said that "for some reason" conservative voters like Herman Cain. Like he couldn't figure it out!

Hah! I was actually thinking of Cain when I wrote that. He was totally kneecapped by the media, and honestly I think the "conspiracy" was that he didn't fit the media narrative, and he wasn't who the Republican establishment wanted. It was pretty deliberate because they did it right as he was getting out in front.


So we'll hold our noses and vote for Romney, and hope that maybe we are wrong about his resolve and determination. Maybe he will take the runaway bull that is Washington and dig his heels in and wrestle that sumbitch to the ground. Maybe.

I'd be a lot more comfortable voting for Romney if I thought he won the nomination on a level playing field. And I don't even mean campaign funds here. I mean he has both the media and the establishment on his side, and the banking industry + high finance on his side doesn't hurt. Thing is though, that same media is going to turn on him in a heartbeat once the presidential campaign really gets under way. I also get the feeling that the Republican establishment is happy being the also-ran... Obama in the white-house does amazing things for their fund raisers.

Unreconstructed Reb
07-12-2012, 11:29 AM
Of course I am. :rolleyes:



So I'll take that as a no about engaging in rational intelligent debate? You'll just continue to call people Libtards that disagree with your political view? Gotcha.



And they are the favorites of 99.9% of the people here...myself included.

Oh and they are choices of the same person you called a Libtard.

I'm a Conservative and a strong believer in individual liberty and state and individual sovereignty and anybody that disagrees with my political view is, in my mind, a libtard. Got it?

Starbuck posted some of that 'it takes a village crap' that all libtards subscribe to. Perhaps you're an 'it takes a village' kind of guy. If so, you have liberal leanings and you rode in on your big eared mount to stand up for your fellow progressive. (The problem with you, starbuck and a lot of other self proclaimed 'conservatives' is that they're more liberal than they'd like to admit.) That's fine. That's the way the internet rolls. Pile on the n00b. Especially if he doesn't respect your awesome post count and submit to your superior intellect and highly nuanced views. /sarc

But, if you insist on having this debate then we should start another thread. That would be the polite thing to do.

Madisonian
07-12-2012, 12:00 PM
It is interesting how when someones candidate can't get more than 5% in the primaries it is always a conspiracy and this person should some how be forced on the other 95% because they don't know what is good for them.

Should we go back and dig up some of the posts that supported Rick Perry. Seems that is exactly what happened around here when his name was briefly trotted out.

Starbuck
07-12-2012, 12:09 PM
Should we go back and dig up some of the posts that supported Rick Perry. Seems that is exactly what happened around here when his name was briefly trotted out.

Probably true, but Perry sort of melted down in the spotlight. Seems as if he was unprepared for the run for president.
I don't really recall an out-and-out press attach like Palin had to deal with, but the press attacks everyone at one time or another...

Today, they're talking about a picture of Romney on a jet ski and comparing it to Kerry windsurfing. Romney will learn not to do that, if it can be avoided.

Romney will have a tough run since he has to carry his Massachusetts record with him. The "Socialist" title would be heaped on him if it weren't for Obama.

Starbuck
07-12-2012, 12:43 PM
Have the Republicans and the right-wing movement in this nation overplayed their hands during the health care debate? .............. for the last 3 years, hour after hour, day after day, the right-wing message control machine has been screaming and bleating these claims over and over and over...........

I think UnReb has made Wee's case. He (UnReb) read something he disagreed with and came out yelling and shaking his proverbial finger, and calling names.

What else could turn away prospective Republican voters? I honestly can't think of anything. UnReb promotes the angry, selfish stereotype that the moderate voters fear most. Confronted with this type of person the unsure voter will either stay home or promote the status quo.

txradioguy
07-12-2012, 12:49 PM
I'm a Conservative and a strong believer in individual liberty and state and individual sovereignty and anybody that disagrees with my political view is, in my mind, a libtard. Got it?

Got it...you're a 100'%er. Your view is the ONLY correct view and the rest of us are just RINO's.

Enjoy your short stay here.

Unreconstructed Reb
07-12-2012, 02:16 PM
I think UnReb has made Wee's case. He (UnReb) read something he disagreed with and came out yelling and shaking his proverbial finger, and calling names.

What else could turn away prospective Republican voters? I honestly can't think of anything. UnReb promotes the angry, selfish stereotype that the moderate voters fear most. Confronted with this type of person the unsure voter will either stay home or promote the status quo.

You're synopsis is absurd.

First of all, I'm not going to change my position just to make some 'unsure' voter feeeeeeeeeeeel good. That is the essence of a RINO/CINO.

Second, I don't care a whit for a damn moderate.

Third, these wishy-washy moderate voters ain't gonna be casting a vote for me so my opinions and political views shouldn't have any effect on their choices at the poll.

Forth, people like you that want to pander to the 'moderates' are open to compromise and in the world of DC politics compromise means that the left gets what it wants and the country suffers.

Unreconstructed Reb
07-12-2012, 02:26 PM
Got it...you're a 100'%er. Your view is the ONLY correct view and the rest of us are just RINO's.

Enjoy your short stay here.

My view is precisely that: my view and I don't need your permission to express it.

It's obvious that you don't want me around. Your first post to me started in on the ban threats and this latest one is in keeping with that theme. You remind me of the so called tolerant left wingers; a person may express their view as long as it mirrors theirs.

But you just keep showing your true stripes. I suggest that you enjoy your short stay here.

BTW, what about that debate? You still game?

Molon Labe
07-12-2012, 02:57 PM
I think UnReb has made Wee's case.


Anybody notice how Wei's OP basically spells out the exact conspiracy that Marixists are denying?

I think what Wei has done either unwittingly or intentionally is justified exactly how Socialism progresses into being. Of course all you have to do is read their literature to understand this

Zeus
07-12-2012, 04:13 PM
On the subject of "moderates" I think The media and a small portion of the population over emphasis's their importance in elections. True moderates are of such a small portion that they have a negligible affect the other so called "moderates" are Lefties in hiding, Folks waiting to see "what's in it for me":more lefties in general and then there are the ones waiting to be told how to vote/going with the flow.

The party extremists (100%) the all or nothing folks are disappointed election after election. Although those on the left appear closer to realizing that dream.