55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:45 pm
@FreeDuck,
Quote:
So why do those who are opposed to it insist on believing that he does?


Because he said he did.
Unless you are saying he was lying then, or is he lying now.

He said he is a proponent of single payer, and he has never said otherwise.
So, absent him saying otherwise, what is anyone supposed to think?
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:45 pm
@Foxfyre,
I've already dis-avowed MACism here and elsewhere.

why is my philosophy important for you to be able to describe your own?

It IS your thread...

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:47 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
So why do those who are opposed to it insist on believing that he does?


Because he said he did.
Unless you are saying he was lying then, or is he lying now.

He said he is a proponent of single payer, and he has never said otherwise.
So, absent him saying otherwise, what is anyone supposed to think?


Who cares what he's a proponent of? What matters is what someone puts forth, what actions they take. Obama has taken no action on this matter whatsoever.

Hell, in his big speech, he was dissing single-payer health care as unworkable in America at this time. How do you square this with your accusations that he's trying to get us on a single-payer system?

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:49 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
How do you square this with your accusations that he's trying to get us on a single-payer system?


I never said he was.
I said he is a proponent of it, according to his own words.
Foxfyre
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:49 pm
@Rockhead,
Rockhead wrote:

I've already dis-avowed MACism here and elsewhere.

why is my philosophy important for you to be able to describe your own?

It IS your thread...


Okay. I'll take that as your statement that you are incapable of describing, much less defending your own point of view or why you disavow MACism. It just proves my point and affirms why I believe conservative ideas are more defensible than liberal ideas. At least conservatives defend their ideas and ideology. Liberals don't seem to be able to and are almost always unwilling to even try.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:52 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
How do you square this with your accusations that he's trying to get us on a single-payer system?


I never said he was.
I said he is a proponent of it, according to his own words.


That's what his supporters will not acknowledge and what they keep diverting from. The fact that he is a proponent and won't say that he will unequivocably oppose any form of new single payer system says volumes. And it does not give opponents of single-payer any confidence that single-payer is not the hidden agenda. Saying that it isn't part of the plan now is not comforting to those who think and who recognize that the door has been left open.

In my opinion, it is that kind of disingenuousness in this whole process that has turned public opinion away from Obama-care.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:56 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
How do you square this with your accusations that he's trying to get us on a single-payer system?


I never said he was.
I said he is a proponent of it, according to his own words.


That's what his supporters will not acknowledge and what they keep diverting from.


Untrue! I just said:

Quote:

Who cares what he's a proponent of?


I never claimed Obama wasn't a proponent of Single-payer, and as he's obviously an intelligent person, he SHOULD be in favor of this system, which is probably the most efficient and best system imaginable.

Quote:
The fact that he is a proponent and won't say that he will unequivocably oppose any form of new single payer system says volumes. And it does not give opponents of single-payer any confidence that single-payer is not the hidden agenda. Saying that it isn't part of the plan now is not comforting to those who think and who recognize that the door has been left open.


Nobody gives a **** if you are comforted, Fox. At all. The Republicans have made it pretty clear that they are unwilling to act as good-faith negotiators on this issue; if Obama said he wasn't pushing for single payer, you would claim that he was lying and then just find something else to attack him on.

Quote:
In my opinion, it is that kind of disingenuousness in this whole process that has turned public opinion away from Obama-care.


It's disingenuous, to not unequivocally oppose something which you don't personally oppose?

It is not wrong to have different ideas about what is best for the country than yours, Fox. And public opinion has swung back the other direction, or didn't you notice that?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 01:57 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
So why do those who are opposed to it insist on believing that he does?


Because he said he did.
Unless you are saying he was lying then, or is he lying now.
Or perhaps he changed his mind when he saw that it wouldn't be possible? Is your accusation that he likes the idea of single payer or that he's trying to backdoor a single payer system?

Quote:
He said he is a proponent of single payer, and he has never said otherwise.
So, absent him saying otherwise, what is anyone supposed to think?
He has said otherwise. He's said he doesn't think it's feasible and won't attempt to get it. He said it's "off the table". How much "otherwise" do you require?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 02:01 pm
@FreeDuck,
Quote:
Quote:
He said he is a proponent of single payer, and he has never said otherwise.
So, absent him saying otherwise, what is anyone supposed to think?

He has said otherwise. He's said he doesn't think it's feasible and won't attempt to get it. He said it's "off the table". How much "otherwise" do you require


So "off the table" now means he is no longer a proponent of something?

I dont see it that way.
"Off the table" means its not in the plans right now.
My flying in the space shuttle is "off the table" but that doesnt mean I no longer want to or dont support it.
It just means that it isnt going to happen right now.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 02:02 pm
@Foxfyre,
"Okay. I'll take that as your statement that you are incapable of describing, much less defending your own point of view or why you disavow MACism. It just proves my point"..blah blah blah...

what it proves, is you are here to say what God has sent you to say and anyone who disagrees is wrong, misinformed, secretly out to get you, or, or, or...






we're done, I got real work to look after.

bye now...
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 02:09 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

So "off the table" now means he is no longer a proponent of something?

I dont see it that way.
"Off the table" means its not in the plans right now.
My flying in the space shuttle is "off the table" but that doesnt mean I no longer want to or dont support it.
It just means that it isnt going to happen right now.

Help me understand. Why do you care if he is a proponent of single payer if he is not attempting to get it done right now?
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 02:10 pm
@Rockhead,
No it doesn't say that at all. What it says is that you so far have refused to defend your point of view about any issue or person about which you have complained, accused, or insulted. I believe that most conservatives can and will do that. I so far have been given little reason to think that numbnuts or extreme Leftists can.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 02:12 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

So "off the table" now means he is no longer a proponent of something?

I dont see it that way.
"Off the table" means its not in the plans right now.
My flying in the space shuttle is "off the table" but that doesnt mean I no longer want to or dont support it.
It just means that it isnt going to happen right now.

Help me understand. Why do you care if he is a proponent of single payer if he is not attempting to get it done right now?


MM can speak for himself. But what we are both saying is that he has not closed the door on that option. He is on the record as favoring it and has not stated that it should not and will not happen on his watch nor will he leave the door open for it to happen later or that it is not a long range goal.

The man has governed so very differently from his campaign rhetoric, that makes the situation quite tenuous and even frightening for single-payer opponents.
Debra Law
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 02:12 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Noting that as all numbnuts and extreme leftists do, you still remain unable to focus on an idea or concept but think insulting people is valid debate. . . . .


My first line directly addressed the contention. And if you are going to continue to call people 'numbnuts,' I'm going to assume that you have abandoned any pretense of civil discussion and start refering to you as a ******* idiot, Fox. Every single post, I'll start off by saying, 'well, as usual, ******* idiots like you can't understand simple concepts.' Do you think you would enjoy that, or that it would lead to reasonable discussion? I can do it, if you would like.

Quote:
You are right. Both Medicare and Medicare offer coverage that bears no resemblance to the actual medical costs. So in saying that, you are 100% agreeing with Ican. But kudos to you for that. That's real progress. Actually admitting that you agree with Ican.


Perhaps you should re-read or edit this sentence? Yeah, I think you should. You are apparently somewhat confused on the topic which is being discussed, but what more should I expect from a ******* idiot?

Cycloptichorn


More accurately, you should have said, "You are apparently somewhat confused on the topic which is being discussed, but what more should I expect from a ******* idiot who thinks insulting people is valid debate."

If you truly want to emulate Foxy's style, you must first insult your opponent with crude names (e.g., numbnut, ******* idiot), assert that your opponent is as stupid as a box of rocks (incapable of understanding simple concepts), and then finish off with the coup de grace, i.e., the hypocritical accusation that your opponent thinks insulting people is valid debate.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 02:19 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

He is on the record as favoring it and has not stated that it should not and will not happen on his watch nor will he leave the door open for it to happen later.

So? If it's not part of the current proposal then it hardly matters what the door is open for, does it? I mean, even if he wanted to, he can't prevent future generations from passing a single payer system. And if he comes back to it in this term or in his possible second term, then there will be ample time to debate and oppose it then. But why oppose the plan on the table on the grounds that you object to a future possible unspecified plan that is not on the table? And again, I wish it was on the table and would be happy to debate with you the merits of it. But you just can't substitute fantasy for reality?

Quote:
The man has governed so very differently from his campaign rhetoric, that makes the situation quite tenuous and even frightening for single-payer opponents.
Really? He wasn't proposing single payer as part of his campaign platform. In fact what he outlined in his speech was very close to his campaign health care proposal.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 02:19 pm
I am 100% opposed to removing a workers' ability to cast a private vote as to whether he does or does not want a union. Taking away that right leaves so much potential for massive abuse and retaliation that I can't imagine any freedom loving person who would support such a thing.

I am torn as to whether an employer should have the right to have a closed union shop if he wants one, however. I don't want the state, much less the federal government, mandating that he HAS to have a closed union shop if he doesn't want one. And I don't think an employer who doesn't have a closed shop should be forced to support or assist the union of any union workers that he might hire.

Anyway the following essay is interesting. Mark Mix of course is a right-to-work guy and is coming from that perspective. Other than the gray areas I've mentioned, I like what he says:

Quote:
September 02, 2005, 9:28 p.m.
Not Working
Ending forced unionism.

By Mark Mix

Right to Work advocates across the nation are celebrating this Labor Day weekend with the hope that, someday soon, American employees will no longer be forced to pay dues or "fees" to union treasuries to keep their jobs. A nationwide grassroots movement, operating independently of U.S. House GOP leaders, has convinced over 100 members of this Congress to sponsor the National Right to Work Act. And this Thursday, the Small Business Committee's Subcommittee on Workforce, Empowerment, and Government Programs will give both proponents and opponents of forced unionism a forum to explain their positions.

This measure, authored by Rep. Joe Wilson (R., S.C.), would not add a single word to federal law. Instead, it would simply repeal provisions in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Railway Labor Act (RLA) that authorize and promote the forced payment of union dues as a condition of employment.

As a result of the compulsory-dues provisions in these two laws, 8 million American employees labor under contracts that force them to pay an average of more than $600 a year to union bosses;if they don’t pay, they can be fired. According to poll after poll, nearly 80% of Americans support Right to Work, so holding a recorded vote will pave the way for the bill's passage, even if it’s not this year.

Every worker should be free to make an individual decision whether to financially support or join a labor union. The NLRA and RLA provisions that force workers to accept union representation and pay union dues plainly violate the Founding Fathers' vision of constitutional, individual rights embodied in the First Amendment. When the original NLRA (known as the Wagner Act) was debated in Congress, its proponents even confessed that it could be unconstitutional. For example, Rep. C.V. Truax (D., Ohio) denounced those who would let the "sacred old Constitution" stand in the way of "progressive . . . legislation."

And one year after the Wagner Act passed, the Supreme Court overturned, partly on First Amendment grounds, similar legislation that forced workers to join unions in the coal industry. Most historians now believe that the 1937 Court would have declared the Wagner Act unconstitutional, had the justices not been intimidated by Franklin Roosevelt's threats to "pack the Court" with six additional justices.

The resulting 5-4 ruling entrenched the Wagner Act in federal law, but it could not make it right. Forcing millions of employees to pay for "representation" is unacceptable.And a system that has given union officials legal power to foist unwanted union representation on workers " and denies those workers the right to penalize poor union performance by withholding dues " has over the years proven harmful to all citizens"except union officials.

Twenty-two states have already enacted Right to Work laws, which protect more than 95% of private employees from the forced-dues provisions in federal law, their experience proves that forced dues are a bad idea. Economists have in recent years completed study after study, using varying methodologies, all showing the same thing: Adjusted for cost of living and taxes, per capita income and family income are significantly higher in the Right to Work states. Most recently, University of Colorado economist Barry Poulson found that, after adjusting for cost of living, household income in Right to Work state metropolitan areas in 2002 was $50,571, nearly $4,300 higher than the average in forced-union duesmetro areas.

Fundamentally, however, the battle for a National Right to Work law isn't simply about economics. It's about whether Congress, regardless of its nebulous rationale, will continue to trample on individual employees' rights by allowing forced unionism. It is difficult to think of a better issue for the House to debate and vote on as Americans celebrate Labor Day.

" Mark Mix is president of the National Right to Work Committee.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/mix200509022128.asp
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 02:27 pm
And, while thwapping Joe Wilson for his indiscretion during the President's speech--terrible etiquette and he was right to issue a public apology for that--here is one opinion of why he didn't lie when he called the President a liar about the government giving healthcare benefits to illegals:

Quote:
Media Matters Lies. Joe Wilson Told the Truth
Posted by Erick Erickson (Profile)
Thursday, September 10th at 1:26PM EDT

The Media Matters guys are out lying today about Joe Wilson.

They are crying to everyone that the Democrats’ health care legislation specifically excludes illegal aliens from health care.

It does.

But only a confused moron like David Brock and his minion would be so vapid and shallow as to take Congress at its word (they never would if it were a Republican plan).

The Democrats have blocked specific Republican attempts to require citizenship verification to get on the government plan. Why? The State Medicaid agencies are given the ability to set eligibility standards for the low income subsidies that will be used for the plan. And they have no incentive not to enroll illegal aliens, particularly since it’s a 100% federal match.

So doctors are not required to verify citizenship because they and the states will get greater allotments the faster the rolls grow. H.R. 3200 claims to block illegal aliens from the plan, but provides incentives to ignore citizenship.

It is like telling a kid that it is against the law to drink, but then specifically not enforcing the law, nor providing any money or manpower to enforce the law.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/09/10/media-matters-lies-joe-wilson-told-the-truth/
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 02:31 pm
@FreeDuck,
FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

He is on the record as favoring it and has not stated that it should not and will not happen on his watch nor will he leave the door open for it to happen later.

So? If it's not part of the current proposal then it hardly matters what the door is open for, does it? I mean, even if he wanted to, he can't prevent future generations from passing a single payer system. And if he comes back to it in this term or in his possible second term, then there will be ample time to debate and oppose it then. But why oppose the plan on the table on the grounds that you object to a future possible unspecified plan that is not on the table? And again, I wish it was on the table and would be happy to debate with you the merits of it. But you just can't substitute fantasy for reality?

Quote:
The man has governed so very differently from his campaign rhetoric, that makes the situation quite tenuous and even frightening for single-payer opponents.
Really? He wasn't proposing single payer as part of his campaign platform. In fact what he outlined in his speech was very close to his campaign health care proposal.


I haven't seen an actual proposal from Obama, have you? If you have, could you please post a link?

There are various propositions for health care reform floating around and until one of them actually moves out of committee and gets voted on, no one knows what is actual off the table.

Lets see some actual bills on the subject that actually get agreed on and then discuss it.
maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 02:32 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

You: 50% of people pay no taxes, they don't care about raising them.

Me: Heck, at least 35-40% of the people who 'pay no taxes' vote Republican. So how can you say they don't care about taxation? Their votes say they do.

You: ....

Not convincing...


She'd be right on this one. Your response in no way refutes "her" statement. There are a million reasons that someone would vote republican that have nothing to do with taxation.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Sep, 2009 02:35 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:

The reason we cannot and will never trust Obama is that his ultimate end game is single payer government run health care for everyone. It is an incremental game they play, and there will be things that will act as triggers that will trigger another increment in the process. This is what they use, they are never honest about their end beliefs, hardly ever, almost never.


Okie, I don't think that's quite accurate. Many people on this board will admit that they want a single payer system, and they'll admit that this gets us 1 step closer (especially if the public option is created). I don't think anyone on the left has ever said that this is as far as they want to go with healthcare; most all on the left want a single payer system (or are indifferent to one).

Of course this is incremental to the end goal of single payer. Every policy is incremental to some end goal.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.18 seconds on 02/12/2025 at 01:32:10