Coakley Is Out--brown Wins

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

How are corporations in control of your lives? Explain that to me. I'd rather deal with businessess than Governments for the reason that if you don't like the way a business is doing things, you take your money and your dealings to a competitor. The more business they lose, the more apt they are to please the customer and boost sales.

Now if a massive centralized entity like the government is doing things that you don't like, what are you going to do about it? Especially considering that America is the country that has the most freedoms, compared to others, what are you going to do when the gov. becomes oppressive? Where else are you going to move or take your business?

You wanna see control? Look at North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwae for control.

ANGRY:

So, you would prefer the ins. & health care provrs. buying more pols to make sure there is no health care, because no matter what Conse 'Pubs say about health care, it's what they've been saying since RR. Conse 'Pubs only went that far, because the issue hung around. What they really want is to trash health care completely, and have bragged about it. Elect Conse 'Pubs and they'll reverse any health care they couldn't stop.

Ins. & HC cos. are spending over $1M per DAY each to get the best deal for them, and have threatened to up prices dramatically. Their plans are to maintain their profit by all offering the same deal to the public, which means you're screwed the same way if you go to a competitor.

Yeah, we became commies under FDR, because pure capitalism was so successful in 1929 under Hoover. RR said Medicare would take the freedom of his children if it was passed, and now 30 years later we'll become like N. Korea?

There are good forms of socialism, like social security, Medicare, unemployment comp., and bad forms. 100% capitalism has problems, and needs restrictions to protect innocent people from greedy types. 100% socialism has problems too, like with dictators.


TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

So, you would prefer the ins. & health care provrs. buying more pols to make sure there is no health care, because no matter what Conse 'Pubs say about health care, it's what they've been saying since RR. Conse 'Pubs only went that far, because the issue hung around. What they really want is to trash health care completely, and have bragged about it. Elect Conse 'Pubs and they'll reverse any health care they couldn't stop.

Ins. & HC cos. are spending over $1M per DAY each to get the best deal for them, and have threatened to up prices dramatically. Their plans are to maintain their profit by all offering the same deal to the public, which means you're screwed the same way if you go to a competitor.

Yeah, we became commies under FDR, because pure capitalism was so successful in 1929 under Hoover. RR said Medicare would take the freedom of his children if it was passed, and now 30 years later we'll become like N. Korea?

There are good forms of socialism, like social security, Medicare, unemployment comp., and bad forms. 100% capitalism has problems, and needs restrictions to protect innocent people from greedy types. 100% socialism has problems too, like with dictators.


TAL

Healthcare is so expensive because of gov. intervention, frivolous lawsuits and losers abusing the ER because they have sand in their vagina. Healthcare is not a universal right, it is an individual responsibility.

Hoover was the one who started they whole expanding gov. thing; FDR was an asshole who took what Hoover did and took it way further. Hoovers institution of Keynesian economics really put us in the shitter. That was not capitalism; that was stupid executive intervention.

There is some room within the free market economy for the government. That role is that of a referee, to make sure that everyone plays by the same set of rules. Anti-trust rules need to be enforced. If monopoly or price fixing is allowed competition ceases and the market stagnates. However, government CANNOT participate in the free market, its very existence in the market kills the private companies that try to compete. This is because government can have unlimited resources, drop prices to unsustainable levels and does not operate on a for profit basis.

This is the difference between conservative and liberal philosophy on the government's role in the market. Conservatives seek to keep the market "fair" making all parties operate under the same rules, creating fairness of opportunity. Liberals on the other define "fair" by the results of the market and seek to create equality of outcome. The only way to guarantee an outcome be the same for everyone is to go to the lowest common denominator. See the Soviet Union.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Healthcare is so expensive because of gov. intervention, frivolous lawsuits and losers abusing the ER because they have sand in their vagina. Healthcare is not a universal right, it is an individual responsibility.


This is the difference between conservative and liberal philosophy on the government's role in the market. Conservatives seek to keep the market "fair" making all parties operate under the same rules, creating fairness of opportunity. Liberals on the other define "fair" by the results of the market and seek to create equality of outcome. The only way to guarantee an outcome be the same for everyone is to go to the lowest common denominator. See the Soviet Union.

ANGRY:

Yep, people without health care should be turned away from the ER, because they're losers? What was RR thinking?

Libs want the outcome to be fair, and the only people spouting your opinion are Conse 'Pubs. It's called demonizing.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

Yep, people without health care should be turned away from the ER, because they're losers? What was RR thinking?

Libs want the outcome to be fair, and the only people spouting your opinion are Conse 'Pubs. It's called demonizing.

TAL

People who are generally irrational and irresponsible, waste their money and live beyond their means are the ones that are usually bitching about there not being enough social safety nets to coddle them. Rewarding stupidity is a recipie for disaster. If they can't afford their healthcare, it's their own fucking fault.

I have no problem with people being charitable; if you want to give your shit away to others, more power to you. But thinking that government is the cure for every little social ill is asinine and mandating that the government take away someone's hard earned money just so you can feel like you made a difference is the opposite of liberty; it is totalitarianism, not humanitarianism.

If you want things to be fair, then give them the opportunity to prove themselves. That way, the only one responsible for their success or shortcomings is that individual.

This is the difference between conservative and liberal philosophy on the government's role in the market. Conservatives seek to keep the market "fair" making all parties operate under the same rules, creating fairness of opportunity. Liberals on the other define "fair" by the results of the market and seek to create equality of outcome. The only way to guarantee an outcome be the same for everyone is to go to the lowest common denominator. See the Soviet Union.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

People who are generally irrational and irresponsible, waste their money and live beyond their means are the ones that are usually bitching about there not being enough social safety nets to coddle them. Rewarding stupidity is a recipie for disaster. If they can't afford their healthcare, it's their own fucking fault.

I have no problem with people being charitable; if you want to give your shit away to others, more power to you. But thinking that government is the cure for every little social ill is asinine and mandating that the government take away someone's hard earned money just so you can feel like you made a difference is the opposite of liberty; it is totalitarianism, not humanitarianism.

If you want things to be fair, then give them the opportunity to prove themselves. That way, the only one responsible for their success or shortcomings is that individual.

ANGRY:

No one is advocating for the government to fix every ill, and it's not to feel better about ourselves. In fact, that is never even a thought. I've noticed that your post is filled with baseless rhetoric, are you running for office?

I hear this rhetoric on Mark Levin's show: liberty, tyranny, and this is OUR country. Conse 'Pubs are the only people who work, pay taxes, and THEY and only THEY should be running the country on a permanent basis. Why is anybody who disagreed with Bush unpatriotic, but Obama was fair game 2 months before the election?

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

No one is advocating for the government to fix every ill, and it's not to feel better about ourselves. In fact, that is never even a thought. I've noticed that your post is filled with baseless rhetoric, are you running for office?

I hear this rhetoric on Mark Levin's show: liberty, tyranny, and this is OUR country. Conse 'Pubs are the only people who work, pay taxes, and THEY and only THEY should be running the country on a permanent basis. Why is anybody who disagreed with Bush unpatriotic, but Obama was fair game 2 months before the election?

TAL

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

ANGRY:

Did you know that according to Limbaugh, Hannity & Levin that Libs--I'm a Mod Dem, BTW--are seething with anger.

The Bush comment is off limits or it makes everything you said right?
It's your one-size-fits-all proof of having a good point? LOL and then some!
All my other comments are wrong with guilt by association?

TAL

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

ANGRY:
(FROM Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C)

Bush was a part of my point only!!

TAL

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I've noticed that when I bring up good points, you automatically change the discussion back to Bush. If my claims were as baseless as you say they are, there would be no need to change the arguement. Stay on topic.

ANGRY from Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

I added to the topic, so what. I covered the topic and added to it a question you evaded and distorted.

TAL

[Tread]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

?

Now if a massive centralized entity like the government is doing things that you don't like, what are you going to do about it? Especially considering that America is the country that has the most freedoms, compared to others, what are you going to do when the gov. becomes oppressive? Where else are you going to move or take your business?

You wanna see control? Look at North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwae for control.

America (assuming USA) is not the country that has the most freedoms. That?s a rumour.

A summery of different freedom ranks (mostly US based):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...reedom#Summary

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by Tread

America (assuming USA) is not the country that has the most freedoms. That?s a rumour.

A summery of different freedom ranks (mostly US based):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...reedom#Summary

TREAD:

Conse 'Pubs know (believe to you and me) that America is the best country ever at everything in any and all universes.

TAL

[Talvenada]

ANGRY:

What about the people who run into bad luck through no fault of their own?

The Conse 'Pub response is: their family, friends, neighbors and charities are suppose to fix it. Why? So that Conse 'Pubs don't foot the bill for someone less fortunate. Would a Conse 'Pub be that friend, family member or neighbor? Sure. Your words say it all.

YOUR WORDS:

I have no problem with people being charitable; if you want to give your shit away to others, more power to you.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

ANGRY:

What about the people who run into bad luck through no fault of their own?

The Conse 'Pub response is: their family, friends, neighbors and charities are suppose to fix it. Why? So that Conse 'Pubs don't foot the bill for someone less fortunate. Would a Conse 'Pub be that friend, family member or neighbor? Sure. Your words say it all.

YOUR WORDS:

I have no problem with people being charitable; if you want to give your shit away to others, more power to you.

You left out a bit there:

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I have no problem with people being charitable; if you want to give your shit away to others, more power to you. But thinking that government is the cure for every little social ill is asinine and mandating that the government take away someone's hard earned money just so you can feel like you made a difference is the opposite of liberty; it is totalitarianism, not humanitarianism.

Being charitable; OK. Having the Gov. be "charitable" with other people's money; not OK.

And for the people who have "bad luck", if they do not have a contingency plan in place for bad times, that shows a lack of foresight and thought on their part. You keep a medkit in your house in the event you get boo-boo's or an extra tire incase one blows out on your car right? So what is preventing someone from doing the responsible thing and having some monetary funds ready and available?

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

You left out a bit there:

Being charitable; OK. Having the Gov. be "charitable" with other people's money; not OK.

And for the people who have "bad luck", if they do not have a contingency plan in place for bad times, that shows a lack of foresight and thought on their part. You keep a medkit in your house in the event you get boo-boo's or an extra tire incase one blows out on your car right? So what is preventing someone from doing the responsible thing and having some monetary funds ready and available?

ANGRY of Socialist State of California (U.S.S.C):

So, there are NO exceptions? Maybe 1 or 2 out of millions?

In theory it works. In reality not so much.

TAL

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

You left out a bit there:

Being charitable; OK. Having the Gov. be "charitable" with other people's money; not OK.

And for the people who have "bad luck", if they do not have a contingency plan in place for bad times, that shows a lack of foresight and thought on their part. You keep a medkit in your house in the event you get boo-boo's or an extra tire incase one blows out on your car right? So what is preventing someone from doing the responsible thing and having some monetary funds ready and available?

ANGRY:

Conse 'Pubs say friends, family and neighbors should help people who fall through the cracks.

You are saying anyone who has a problem it's 100% their fault--end of story?

Would you be that friend, famly member or neighbor who would reach in your pocket to help that person? Prove me wrong by saying there are no exceptions.


TAL

[Talvenada]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

TREAD:

Conse 'Pubs know (believe to you and me) that America is the best country ever at everything in any and all universes.

TAL

THREAD:

Conse 'Pubs look only for that which proves they're right, and anything else is ignored.

TAL

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Talvenada

TREAD:

Conse 'Pubs know (believe to you and me) that America is the best country ever at everything in any and all universes.

TAL

Ahhh. The old "guilty of success" card...

[The Conquistador]

I am inclined to disagree with the list there Tread. Anything that lists UK as a bastion of freedom is very skewed given their recent activities:

Cops using drones to spy on people in the name of "public safety": http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/ja...ce-plan-drones

Family kicked out of their house after squatter took control of it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...Christmas.html

Making self-defense illegal: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...ith-knife.html

Even their own citizens are saying that Britain sucks: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-itself.html

Afterall, they have stupid internet laws that can be made up on the spot!: http://www.boingboing.net/2009/11/20...w-interne.html

Hell, you can't even sell shit on e-Bay anymore!: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...013016,00.html

Sweden was even talking about a "man tax" simply for being a man!: http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive.../gay100804.htm

Sorry, but that does not sound very much like freedom...