AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

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.

This directly cuts against her argument that setting up situations where people pay no taxes, and rely on the government for things, creates a 'dependent class' which will keep voting the same people in. Large percentages of people who pay no taxes in fact vote for the party who consistently bemoans the fact that they pay no taxes, and want to change the situation so that they do.

According to Fox, this shouldn't happen, period. I agree with you that there are plenty of reasons to vote Republican; but then again, I'm not the ******* idiot promoting the idea that politicians create 'dependent classes' through tax policy.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

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

Robert started a thread on it here and he outlined what he wants to see in his speech on Wednesday.

Quote:

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.

I'd love to believe that HR 676 still has a chance but if the president doesn't support it then I doubt it will go anywhere. He's said single payer is off the table and that certainly seems to be the case based on the bills that are getting the most support and on what Max Baucus has publicly said.

Quote:

Lets see some actual bills on the subject that actually get agreed on and then discuss it.

I agree. But I'm not the one jumping to conclusions based on a 2003 speech. (Not saying you are either, but that's the context of the conversation that you've jumped into.)

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

Many liberals are very reluctant to describe their philosophy in much detail. Since I have been on this forum, I have found that to be something very noticeable, and conservatives are more than anxious and proud of what they believe. I would think any poster should jump at the chance to defend their true beliefs. Debra Law is a another example, when asked point blank if she believes in Marxism, has so far declined to answer as far as I know.

This is also the problem we are dealing with in regard to Obama. He is cryptic and elusive, not open, and veils his true objectives and beliefs with incomplete explanations. His campaign was known for its generalities and utter lack of detail, and therein still lies the problem. One example, he continues to talk about "my plan" for health care, but he does not have a plan as far as I know, it is hidden in his head or in murky discussions with various versions of the legislation still in progress, so nobody really knows.

I have gone through a process of giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, hoping for the best, etc., but I am now concluding by his past actions and associations, and by his veiled and cryptic statements that he is indeed some kind of Marxist or extreme Socialist working on an agenda that he only knows exactly what it is. We have to guess, and the above is my guess, therefore I will not trust one iota of what the man says.

3 Replies

@okie,

maybe their hesitation is due to your propensity for mudslinging...

0 Replies

@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?

I am open for a debate on single-payer versus free market, but really we have been having that on several threads for months now. You cannot provide an example of a single-payer system, other than on a very small scale, that is not rife with problems or that is paying its own way, and you have no examples at all for a population as large and diverse as the USA. By contrast, I am a small, effective, efficient government person who does not want the federal government doing ANYTHING that can be done as responsibly at the state or private sector level.

All this is to say that I think just rehashing all the ground that has already been covered would be really boring for everybody else.

Quote:

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.

He wasn't proposing a takeover of financial institutions, auto companies, or moving the U.S. Census into the White House to be partially administered by ACORN or a $9 trillion dollar deficit over 10 years in his campaign rhetoric either. His campaign rhetoric re health care did not threaten private insurance or private plans in the way the plan Congress came up with did. His most recent speech provided no specifics and was pretty ambiguous in all the areas of greatest concern to those who are concerned. Or, as I just posted, pretty disingenuous in areas like public healthcare for people in the country illegally. He completely ignored the CBO assessment of the proposed costs of his healthcare reform even while glibly saying that he wouldn't approve a plan that would increase the deficit. And what planet does he come from saying that with a straight face? He either increases the deficit or increases taxes at unprecedented heights. He didn't mention portability or relaxing regulation to allow private insurance companies ability to compete more effectively and gave the mildest lip service to tort reform with nothing to suggest what that would be.

The man is very Clintonesque in reading the polls and adjusting his rhetoric to better fit what he thinks people want to hear, but his style of governing is very different from his words.

And that is why the majority of Americans are no longer trusting him on this issue.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, Which country have you lived in for the past 50 years or so? How many politicians past (from 1900) and present (*still alive) have kept all their campaign promises? Please name one.

0 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

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.

maporsche, you are a pretty honest guy and poster here, more moderate, and I understand your point, but I think Obama wants to go alot further than most liberals realize. He really is a very extreme radical in my opinion. Health care is just a beginning for him.

So it does not follow that every initiative in Congress is incremental, not at all. Sure, there are negotiations and compromise, but I don't think we have ever had to compromise across a literal ocean. Up to this point in our history, compromise was across small streams, puddles, or ponds, not across an ocean of disagreement to the absolute extreme of leftist policy. I say this because I believe the evidence indicates Obama to be a very serious radical, more radical than any president in our nation's history. I say this from 50 years of observing politics.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

At least conservatives defend their ideas and ideology.

YOU LIE!

The history of this thread demonstrates that Foxfyre routinely posts articles or columns written by "conservatives" whom Foxfyre admires, and those postings are filled with pure hyperbole and unsupported statements. Foxfyre claims, because the words are not her own, she has no duty whatsoever to defend or support them, but she demands that everyone else must discuss the substance and state explicitly why they agree or disagree with it. As Cyclops noted previously, Foxfyre keeps herself at arms length away from the substance so she may disavow it when it's proven to be nothing more than unsubstantiated hyperbole. Thus, we all know Foxfyre is LYING when she states that conservatives defend their ideas and ideology because Foxfyre routinely herself distances herself from their words and refuses to put her own chips on the table.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn, I do not think you are dumb enough to actually think what you claim to think.

Based on your recent posts, I conclude you are simply promoting your ideology and are willing to employ whatever falsities you think will help promote your ideology.

All that remains now for me to detect is precisely what the hell is your ideology.

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

"Based on your recent posts, I conclude you are simply promoting your ideology and are willing to employ whatever falsities you think will help promote your ideology."

Shocked

he's becoming a MAC? Laughing

(aren't you the guy with the secret information?)

0 Replies

You know it just occurred to me that Obama said he proposes to pay for a great deal of his healthcare reform by the savings from elimination of fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid.

He's the head guy now. He won the election. He has complete and total power to ORDER elimination of fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid now.

If he is aware of how much in savings is available, how come he hasn't done that? Isn't doing that? It would do wonders to help lower that unsustainable deficit looming out there.

And they wonder why more of the people don't take their high sounding rhetoric seriously.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I listened to NPR for a couple hours yesterday, and revealing it was. The discussion was partly about how the savings would be attained, and some of it was how to educate the public on what they actually needed, to cut down on tests, etc., translation was bureaucrats would ration and determine need for tests and so forth. Also, alot of our problem is obesity, and there would begin a campaign to control diets, taxing bad foods, regulate food, you name it, we have only scratched the surface of government potential for control.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I am open for a debate on single-payer versus free market, but really we have been having that on several threads for months now.

Sure, hop on over to the health care thread and have a read.

Quote:

You cannot provide an example of a single-payer system, other than on a very small scale, that is not rife with problems or that is paying its own way, and you have no examples at all for a population as large and diverse as the USA. By contrast, I am a small, effective, efficient government person who does not want the federal government doing ANYTHING that can be done as responsibly at the state or private sector level.

So you don't want to have the discussion here, but you're making claims anyway. We can do this elsewhere.

Quote:

His campaign rhetoric re health care did not threaten private insurance or private plans in the way the plan Congress came up with did.

So now congress has to adhere to Obama's campaign promises? You've been a little too long under the unitary executive.

Quote:

His most recent speech provided no specifics and was pretty ambiguous in all the areas of greatest concern to those who are concerned.

It was infinitely more specific than the snippet you posted from 2003 as his 'original plan'.

Quote:

Or, as I just posted, pretty disingenuous in areas like public healthcare for people in the country illegally. He completely ignored the CBO assessment of the proposed costs of his healthcare reform even while glibly saying that he wouldn't approve a plan that would increase the deficit. And what planet does he come from saying that with a straight face? He either increases the deficit or increases taxes at unprecedented heights. He didn't mention portability or relaxing regulation to allow private insurance companies ability to compete more effectively and gave the mildest lip service to tort reform with nothing to suggest what that would be.

You're all over the place. He doesn't have a plan, but his plan would increase the deficit. He was non-specific, but was specifically disingenuous. Take a deep breath. You're spinning yourself up in opposition for the sake of opposition.

Quote:

And that is why the majority of Americans are no longer trusting him on this issue.

We've had this discussion.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

YOU LIE!

Too perfect.
K
O

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Cycloptichorn, I do not think you are dumb enough to actually think what you claim to think.

Well, I'm smart enough to know that Max Baucus isn't a part of the House of Reps, and that the bill he is sponsoring in the Senate includes nothing resembling single-payer health care.

Quote:

Based on your recent posts, I conclude you are simply promoting your ideology and are willing to employ whatever falsities you think will help promote your ideology.

I have engaged in no falsities whatsoever and would challenge you to point out a single one, Ican. A single one. I would also challenge you to admit your own predilection for making up 'facts' to support your side of the debate.

Quote:

All that remains now for me to detect is precisely what the hell is your ideology.

I am an American liberal. I make no bones about my ideology and never have.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

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/

And how do you propose that doctors "verify citizenship" of their patients? What if Barack Obama goes to a doctor and is refused treatment because the only thing he can produce is a certified copy of a live birth certificate from the State of Hawaii? Gosh darn: Everyone knows that's insufficient proof of citizenship. Do you demand that the proposed healthcare bill require national identification cards? I thought conservatives were very much against the mark of the beast. . . .

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

maporsche wrote:

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.

maporsche, you are a pretty honest guy and poster here, more moderate, and I understand your point, but I think Obama wants to go alot further than most liberals realize. He really is a very extreme radical in my opinion. Health care is just a beginning for him.

So it does not follow that every initiative in Congress is incremental, not at all. Sure, there are negotiations and compromise, but I don't think we have ever had to compromise across a literal ocean. Up to this point in our history, compromise was across small streams, puddles, or ponds, not across an ocean of disagreement to the absolute extreme of leftist policy. I say this because I believe the evidence indicates Obama to be a very serious radical, more radical than any president in our nation's history. I say this from 50 years of observing politics.

From all indications Maporsche is indeed an honest and honorable man and, though we've crossed swords now and then, I admire and respect him a great deal and pay attention to his posts. Most of our disagreements have come from self interests. He needs inflation for instance to solve his housing problem. I don't need it as it will negatively affect my retirement. But we can probably agree to disagree on the virtues of that. Smile

The two of you do seem to recognize that whatever compromises over whatever distance are achieved, we do need to be aware of the hidden agenda or the intentions behind the screen in the corner.

The fact is, if they are successful getting through an apparently innocuous and well-intentioned healthcare 'reform' that ultimately puts the insurance companies at such a disadvantage that private insurance ceases to exist, they have then made all but the very rich totally dependent on the government. And after they do that, they can do any damn thing to us they want.

0 Replies

Not to cause a huge dustup here, but to get to the point, maybe its time to ask every single liberal here if they are a Marxist? If they are, then that would solve alot of the mystery. If not, then the next question would be why do you support Obama? This is merely trying to use logical reasoning here. Open honest answers are necessary for it to work.

What do ya think, people, everyone should be happy to state their philosophy in full and in detail, don't ya think?

1 Reply

@okie,

who's version of Marxist would you require us to use, mr philosophizer?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

You know it just occurred to me that Obama said he proposes to pay for a great deal of his healthcare reform by the savings from elimination of fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid.

He's the head guy now. He won the election. He has complete and total power to ORDER elimination of fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid now.

Not quite. Cuts to medicare, in any way, can only happen with Congressional approval. If you knew anything about the setup of our government, you might not need to be reminded of this.

But don't take my word for it -

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124827296456872301.html

Quote:

And they wonder why more of the people don't take their high sounding rhetoric seriously.

No, we don't wonder, and Obama likely doesn't either - you don't take it seriously because you're a bunch of ******* idiots who don't know what they are talking about.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know