The open political discussion thread. Read the first post!

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by 2+2

Agreed.

Kal-El - I don't mean to sound disrespectful but you sound young. You don't know what a fascist is and yet you rail against them and socialists and liberals and, and, and. Why regurgitate what you've heard on the radio? It isn't really that much harder to think for yourself.

To start with, how many countries around the world are 100% socialist or 100% capitalist? You know life isn't that black and white, don't you? It's just never that simple. Most countries have elements of each system, even China.

In the health care debate, I've heard there are 1300 different insurance companies with 1300 different forms for doctors to have to figure out. You think that's efficient? I think we should go all the way <gasp> to a single payer government run system that streamlines all that paperwork. What do YOU think? No, I'm not asking you what Rush or Sean or Glenn thinks. What do you think? What's the capitalist answer to that little problem?

For the record, I'm 30. I was a liberal up until last year then I woke up.

When was the last time government streamlined something, reduced costs, and reduced paperwork??? LOL!! Government does the exact opposite in every chance they've gotten. They are notorious for complicating everything into 1000+ page bills and spent us into $100 trillion in obligations. And you think they are going to fix health care??? That's freakin' hilarious.

And I only think for myself, thank you.

[2+2]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

For the record, I'm 30. I was a liberal up until last year then I woke up.

When was the last time government streamlined something, reduced costs, and reduced paperwork??? LOL!! Government does the exact opposite in every chance they've gotten. They are notorious for complicating everything into 1000+ page bills and spent us into $100 trillion in obligations. And you think they are going to fix health care??? That's freakin' hilarious.

And I only think for myself, thank you.

Good answer and I find it interesting that you were a liberal until last year.

I hear ya on your skepticism about the government's ability to do anything right. What's the alternative? Is there a non-socialist way to reduce the number of insurance companies or at least force them to all use the same paperwork etc? Even Obama's plan to force insurance companies to not drop people for serious or preexisting illnesses has some problems I think. The "experts" are all saying health care is going to bankrupt the country if we don't fix it. So what's the answer?


Edit: lol cross post. There's too many people ganging up on you Kal-El! lol I'm backing off. You're fighting a good fight though!

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by 2+2

Good answer and I find it interesting that you were a liberal until last year.

I hear ya on your skepticism about the government's ability to do anything right. What's the alternative? Is there a non-socialist way to reduce the number of insurance companies or at least force them to all use the same paperwork etc? Even Obama's plan to force insurance companies to not drop people for serious or preexisting illnesses has some problems I think. The "experts" are all saying health care is going to bankrupt the country if we don't fix it. So what's the answer?


Edit: lol cross post. There's too many people ganging up on you Kal-El! lol I'm backing off. You're fighting a good fight though!

Good questions.

As everyone reinforces, health care is pretty much the most complicated thing out there. Reform of any kind will not be easy.

Conservatives call for...

-Tort reform - stop or cap the frivolous law suits that skyrocket doctor costs.

-having existing insurance companies compete and operate in most states rather than just one or a few. That way customers really have many choices among the 1300 existing companies. Most states are dominated by only a couple of companies.

-regulations that make it illegal for companies to refuse people because of pre-existing conditions (both sides agree here).

-illegal to drop customers of refuse coverage for needed procedures

Just these things alone would make a HUGE difference.
No need to overhaul the whole system and introduce a government plan that will kill off the private sector.

[Bob Dog]

I must take issue with what is a misuse of the term conservative. A true conservative is one who holds closely to traditional held values. A true conservative is slow to change, and questions the new in the light of how it would alter that which has long served our nation and protected our values. In doing so, this protects us from the usurpation of the very bedrock of tradition on which our country is founded. There is much to be said in favor of this. Many times things of great value can be lost in passing fads of political opinion. Conservatism is the political opinion those who have great entitlements, as with person of great wealth, and sometimes those who have little and are afraid of losing what little they have. This can, however, lead to a resistance to change, when change is truly necessary. Dwight Eisenhauer could be considered a true conservative. From Richard Nixon on the Republican presidents have not been truly conservative, but men with self serving agendas primarily directed at keeping the wealthy wealthy and also enhancing the degree of their wealth.

Liberalism is traditionally an openness to change. True liberals wish to alter things that exist, to right inequities and wrongs in the existing system. A true liberal’s goal is not to change the system for the sake of change, but to change the system to that degree which corrects the aforementioned wrongs. I consider Kennedy, and Carter to be true liberals. They wished to change our system mostly to correct grave injustices. Change is often a good and necessary thing, but if used carelessly much can be lost to change. Barak Obama, whom I voted for president, is not a liberal in the traditional sense. He seems to think that change for its own sake is a good thing. I withhold my very humble judgement of him, for after the radical modifications of the Bush administration, a great deal of change is in order.

A radical is a person whose opinions deviates greatly from mainstream opinion and they often are based on a personal agenda.

A reactionary is a political person whose opinions are basically a response to someone else's political opinions. They are not founded in deep thought, or consideration of the long term good of our nation. They are most often emotional in nature and self serving

An extremist is one who takes the point of view as far as possible in the direction of their particular predilection with little regard for the ultimate results that an execution of their point of view into reality.

Radical Reactionary Extremist, not conservative, is the proper category into which to place Beck, O’Reilly and Hannity.

[Kal-El]

Originally Posted by Bob Dog

I must take issue with what is a misuse of the term conservative. A true conservative is one who holds closely to traditional held values. A true conservative is slow to change, and questions the new in the light of how it would alter that which has long served our nation and protected our values. In doing so, this protects us from the usurpation of the very bedrock of tradition on which our country is founded. There is much to be said in favor of this. Many times things of great value can be lost in passing fads of political opinion. Conservatism is the political opinion those who have great entitlements, as with person of great wealth, and sometimes those who have little and are afraid of losing what little they have. This can, however, lead to a resistance to change, when change is truly necessary. Dwight Eisenhauer could be considered a true conservative. From Richard Nixon on the Republican presidents have not been truly conservative, but men with self serving agendas primarily directed at keeping the wealthy wealthy and also enhancing the degree of their wealth.

Liberalism is traditionally an openness to change. True liberals wish to alter things that exist, to right inequities and wrongs in the existing system. A true liberal’s goal is not to change the system for the sake of change, but to change the system to that degree which corrects the aforementioned wrongs. I consider Kennedy, and Carter to be true liberals. They wished to change our system mostly to correct grave injustices. Change is often a good and necessary thing, but if used carelessly much can be lost to change. Barak Obama, whom I voted for president, is not a liberal in the traditional sense. He seems to think that change for its own sake is a good thing. I withhold my very humble judgement of him, for after the radical modifications of the Bush administration, a great deal of change is in order.

A radical is a person whose opinions deviates greatly from mainstream opinion and they often are based on a personal agenda.

A reactionary is a political person whose opinions are basically a response to someone else's political opinions. They are not founded in deep thought, or consideration of the long term good of our nation. They are most often emotional in nature and self serving

An extremist is one who takes the point of view as far as possible in the direction of their particular predilection with little regard for the ultimate results that an execution of their point of view into reality.

Radical Reactionary Extremist, not conservative, is the proper category into which to place Beck, O’Reilly and Hannity.

I agree with a lot of your assessment except for the last line.

I'm not a big fan of O'Really but these guys aren't radical reactionary extremist.

A liberal may see it that way, but really they are simply reassuring what conservatives and liberatarians already believe by reporting and commenting on political news from a conservative perspective. They aren't pushing a "personal agenda" but rather standing up for conservatism because no one else in media will. So their passion comes off as extreme to the other side.

People make fun of Beck when he gets emotional, but those are his true feelings coming out because of his love for the foundation and Constitution of America. He doesn't want to see it thrown away in favor of another system. So he gets passionate about it. America is lucky to have someone so brave.

[Kal-El]

You guys are OK with these people running the show?

Cass Sunstein, President Obama's friend and nominee for "regulatory czar" is a "raving animal rights nut". Calls for the banning of hunting. Believes animals should have the right to sue in the court of law.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104820

Obama Science Czar’s Plan To Sterilize Population Through Water Supply. Believes in forced abortions.
John P. Holdren
http://www.infowars.com/obama-scienc...ady-happening/

Obama Appoints self proclaimed Communist To White House for "Green Jobs"
Van Jones
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2009/04/...ts-former.html

Obama climate czar has socialist ties. Calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
Carol M. Browner
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ocialist-ties/

FCC 'Diversity' Czar Lloyd is virulently anti-capitalist, almost myopically racially fixated and exuberantly pro-regulation. Will basically end free speech as we know it.
Mark Lloyd
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-m...mocratic-revol

Obama: "Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU


NONE OF THIS STUFF BOTHERS YOU GUYS? And it's just the tip of the iceberg and doesn't count all of his friends and associations.

This is all from the mouths of the listed people. Not some right wing political propaganda as you guys will claim.

[2006fronty]

Originally Posted by Kal-El

You guys are OK with these people running the show?

Cass Sunstein, President Obama's friend and nominee for "regulatory czar" is a "raving animal rights nut". Calls for the banning of hunting. Believes animals should have the right to sue in the court of law.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=104820

Obama Science Czar’s Plan To Sterilize Population Through Water Supply. Believes in forced abortions.
John P. Holdren
http://www.infowars.com/obama-scienc...ady-happening/

Obama Appoints self proclaimed Communist To White House for "Green Jobs"
Van Jones
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2009/04/...ts-former.html

Obama climate czar has socialist ties. Calls for "global governance" and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change.
Carol M. Browner
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ocialist-ties/

FCC 'Diversity' Czar Lloyd is virulently anti-capitalist, almost myopically racially fixated and exuberantly pro-regulation. Will basically end free speech as we know it.
Mark Lloyd
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-m...mocratic-revol

Obama: "Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU


NONE OF THIS STUFF BOTHERS YOU GUYS? And it's just the tip of the iceberg and doesn't count all of his friends and associations.

This is all from the mouths of the listed people. Not some right wing political propaganda as you guys will claim.

Seriously?????? You forgot to reference the National Enquirer lol. OH NO, don't drink the water, our black president is trying to make me shoot blanks!!!