roverroad wrote:Quote:It's all a matter of perspective.
No, It's not!... I'm going to log off now so that I won't have to suffer any more of this!
It's not??
Then what are you suggesting? There is only a radical Right and no radical left?
That does seem to be the case.
McGentrix wrote:That does seem to be the case.
From IT"S perspective of course!! :wink:
woiyo wrote:Then what are you suggesting? There is only a radical Right and no radical left?
There's a radical left, but it's extremely small and insignificant. We're talking a few thousand people. Your communists and your socialists. When is the last time you heard someone say that they want Communism in the U.S.
No, there is only a radical right and a giant center in this country.
Maybe not communism exactly, but Hillary sure like Socialism as evidenced by her silly stab at Univeral Healcare and of course her book, It Takes a Vikkage.
The radical left don't call themselves communists and socialists. Instead they simply advocate the agenda of communism and socialism. Of course this fits with being intellectually dishonest. Conservatives are proud to be called conservatives. Liberals usually aren't proud of being called a liberal. Thus leftists claim their is not much of a radical left in this country. Stalin didn't think his politics were radical either. He thought it was only logical and normal that everyone would think the government could manage everybody and everything better. Liberals now think the government is the answer to every problem as well, but to them it isn't radical to believe this. They think it is normal. After all, thats what they've learned in college, and probably in many K-12 schools since liberal thinking has a pretty significant influence in education these days. I still think its radical. And if the founders were brought back to life today to repeat some of the things they believed and said before, they would immediately be labeled radical right-wing kooks by the liberals of today.
As far as how many radical leftists there are, I don't think the number is super high, however, the Democrat Party is being controlled now by radical leftists. One only needs to look at Howard Dean, the guy that supposedly kind of runs the party, and their presidential candidates of late, Al Gore and John Kerry. These guys are all big time leftists. One only needs to look at what they've said. Things like Bush may have known about 911 before it happened, the internal combustion engine is the biggest threat to mankind, American soldiers commit atrocities on a regular basis, etc. I consider these types of attitudes are pretty far out in left field.
okie wrote:since liberal thinking has a pretty significant influence in education these days
Well, that's because the smarter you are the more liberal you become. :wink:
okie wrote:
Quote:since liberal thinking has a pretty significant influence in education these days
That is because the educated can recognize injustice.
As to universal health care it is disgrace that a nation as rich and powerful as the U S does not afford all of it's citizens health care coverage.
au1929 wrote:
That is because the educated can recognize injustice.
As to universal health care it is disgrace that a nation as rich and powerful as the U S does not afford all of it's citizens health care coverage.
Apparently as a liberal that advocates full and complete socialism for health care, where do you draw the line in terms of what the government should do? If as you say, the country is so rich and powerful, should food, clothing, and housing, and maybe even basic transportation, should they be provided by government as well?
okie wrote:]
au1929 wrote:
That is because the educated can recognize injustice.
As to universal health care it is disgrace that a nation as rich and powerful as the U S does not afford all of it's citizens health care coverage.
Apparently as a liberal that advocates full and complete socialism for health care, where do you draw the line in terms of what the government should do? If as you say, the country is so rich and powerful, should food, clothing, and housing, and maybe even basic transportation, should they be provided by government as well?
Ridiculous your question and response is just meant to muddy the water. I should remind you that almost, if not all industrialized nations in the world afford their citizens universal health care. Does that indicate they are all socialist or does it just indicate a compassion for their citizens that is lacking in the US?
au1929 wrote:okie wrote:
Quote:since liberal thinking has a pretty significant influence in education these days
That is because the educated can recognize injustice.
As to universal health care it is disgrace that a nation as rich and powerful as the U S does not afford all of it's citizens health care coverage.
EVERY US Citizen has access to Health Care.
au1929 wrote:okie wrote:]
au1929 wrote:
That is because the educated can recognize injustice.
As to universal health care it is disgrace that a nation as rich and powerful as the U S does not afford all of it's citizens health care coverage.
Apparently as a liberal that advocates full and complete socialism for health care, where do you draw the line in terms of what the government should do? If as you say, the country is so rich and powerful, should food, clothing, and housing, and maybe even basic transportation, should they be provided by government as well?
Ridiculous your question and response is just meant to muddy the water. I should remind you that almost, if not all industrialized nations in the world afford their citizens universal health care. Does that indicate they are all socialist or does it just indicate a compassion for their citizens that is lacking in the US?
My question about government also providing food, clothing, and housing is attempting to clarify your overall philosophy of what government should do. You say that government should provide health care for all citizens. Is this where you draw the line? Is that all that government should be involved in? And if so, why? What makes health care unique as compared to food, clothing, and housing? Why should it be limited to health care? I am just trying to help you determine what your own thinking is?
We do have a form of socialized health care here - it's just administered differently. The government pays most health care costs through Medicare, Medicaid and the Veterans Administration, and also picks up the tab for much of the remainder (through tax subsidies, mandates to insurance companies, mandates re emergency care, etc.)
Canada's socialized program is plagued with long waits and high taxes. Of course, they don't have the per capita defense budget that we do (preferring to mooch off us), but if the tables were turned, we'd be much wealthier, relatively speaking.
au1929 might want to take a good, long look at some of those "compassionate" countries to see how that's working out for them. :wink:
Just Wonders, I agree. I was just trying to get au1929 to admit to what degree of socialism he or she wants. I am not even saying yet what amount of socialism I am willing to advocate. We already have quite a bit of it in place with Social Security, Medicare, etc., but the question is how much more can be good for us in the long run?
okie
If you consider Medicare, Medicaid, Social security and food stamps socialistic than I am all for socialism. Legislation to cut spending to make up the revenue short fall was just passed by your compassionate conservatives in congress. A deficit which is primarily the result of the tax cuts and the billions being wasted to fighting "Bush's" war. Did they rescind or at cut back on the tax cuts which went to the rich and powerful? Hell no they attacked the poorest,weakest among us by cutting Medicaid,Food stamps and student loans. I guess only the wealthy are deserving of sustenance,adequate medical care and education. .
That is the republican way.
woiyo wrote:
EVERY US Citizen has access to Health Care.
That's an absurd statement--and I have worked in the health-care system at a county hospital that does all it can to help everyone--for 15 years.
If you think uninsured people have anything like the access insured people do, you're not paying attention. The hospitals that actually do try to help everyone are going broke--either quickly or slowly.
I don't believe woiyo said that everyone had equal access, just access and they do.
I have good insurance, but I know people with better and they receive better, faster care than I. I have no problem with that. They also pay a heck of lot more than I do for their insurance.
You guys are splitting hairs. That's like saying everyone has access to the bank.
Try seeing how well you do with no health insurance when you have a chronic health problem.
Why would I want to do that?
