How Republicans Blew It

Conservatism (root word; conserve) is, technically, not an ideology and is not based purely on abstract postulations but in principles meant to preserve what has been proven to work throughout history.
Click to expand...
considering the failure rate of historical societies, that's not saying much.
there is no ideology that is "proven to work". there are only those that have not yet lived long enough to fail.
 
Here you go Foxpaws

Calculate the cost of your socialist utopia.

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx#tableLinkDiv


I really like knowing our family just lost $10,000 so an illegal alien's family can come here for free medical care.

$10,000 blah. We won't let our kids participate in sports now, no dining out ever (mac-n-cheese for us), turn off the cable TV, return the cell phone, plan burial arrangements for my kid who dies waiting on the Fed to decide when he should get treatment, and oh ya, wait by the door for the IRS to show up with the Swat Team to haul me off to jail for missing a premium payment.

Go U.S.S.A. !!!
 
foxpaws said:

Liberal - origins (roots)
Liber is a Latin adjective meaning free, unrestricted, unrestrained, etc. The adjective liber is likely derived from the Latin verb libero, liberare, liberavi, liberatus, which means to set free. Liber could also be used as a substantive adjective within the context of the Latin language, meaning a freeman or freedom.
Click to expand...
There you go again. You've tried this pathetic little canard before - and there isn't a person here who thinks that you're for more freedom and less government. NOT ONE PERSON.

You're a liar.
 
http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Con...gative-impact-of-ObamaCare-already-kicking-in

48 hours had not even passed after Congress approved ObamaCare before the negative impact of its provisions began kicking in.

Remember, the so-called 'benefits' of the program will not begin until 2014. But the fees, taxes, and other surcharges that are essential to the plan go into effect immediately.

This has led to some disturbing consequences just within the last 24 hours.

Karl Denninger via WRSA reported this:

From the forum:

"So I just got a call from my health insurance provider. My family rates are going up $200/month ... $2400/year per employee effective April 1st. Didn't take long after signing to get this s**t going.

So much for the "my plan will save Americans" $2500/year in Healthcare premiums.

F***ing liar in chief. "

This is not the only troubling development as a consequence of ObamaCare. A local radio station in the Upstate of South Carolina, which has a call-in show each afternoon, was inundated with calls Tuesday afternoon concerning hospitals turning away Medicare patients this week.

One elderly woman was sent home from the emergency room after the bare
minimum of treatment with a fever of 103 degrees. When she was forced to return to the emergency room within 24 hours, due to the fact that she was not adequately treated the first time, the doctor informed her they could not give her care because it was 'too soon after her initial treatment.'

Some careful research on this issue uncovered a little-known, unreported matter involving government control of healthcare. According to none other than the Senate's late champion of socialized medicine, Ted Kennedy, much of the excess cost of Medicare comes from readmissions within 30 days of initial treatment. Thus, proponents of government control of healthcare costs advocate limiting readmissions.

And what, precisely, was the 'fix' for that cost run-up? Ban Medicare recipients from receiving follow-up care within 30 days of their initial treatment as part of government-run healthcare.
 
But but but...

Democrats are for the LITTLE GUY -

So we KNOW this story can't be true, Monster.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MonsterMark said:
Here you go Foxpaws

Calculate the cost of your socialist utopia.

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx#tableLinkDiv


I really like knowing our family just lost $10,000 so an illegal alien's family can come here for free medical care.

$10,000 blah. We won't let our kids participate in sports now, no dining out ever (mac-n-cheese for us), turn off the cable TV, return the cell phone, plan burial arrangements for my kid who dies waiting on the Fed to decide when he should get treatment, and oh ya, wait by the door for the IRS to show up with the Swat Team to haul me off to jail for missing a premium payment.

Go U.S.S.A. !!!
Click to expand...

Your family of 4 can be insured by Kaiser for only $10,000 a year... and you don't get any of the subsidies. I don't know what you are paying now, but that is pretty good, for really great insurance. Go out to that calculator at Kaiser that you posted - you will find some interesting things... if someone who makes 40,000 a year wants to insure his family with Kaiser (darn good insurance) it will now only cost him $2200 a year -

To fact check that insurance costs will be less for needy families (not wealthy families like yours MM - who have cadillac plans under this plan, or me - whose company only offers a high deductible plan - my costs will go up).

4. The plan will lower health insurance premiums for most people. A few people will see significant reductions in what they pay for health insurance if they qualify for low-income tax credits to buy their policies. But the vast majority of Americans will see no decrease or a very slight decrease in premiums, according to projections. Obama said, "The costs for families (in the individual market) for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent." We rated that Half True. Obama's statement is true only for those in the individual market who are buying comprehensive plans right now. For people buying high-deductible, low-cost plans, the premiums will increase, because they'll have to buy plans that offer more coverage.

And where do you get that the Fed will decide if your child gets treatment - no where - it isn't in the bill - your insurance company could decide that, but there is no public option. And illegal immigrants - want to point to the part of the bill that covers them. We covered them before with the policy of never turning anyone away at the emergency room. That isn't going to change - they still have to go to the emergency room - unless they buy health insurance like the rest of us.

To fact check that you won't be denied care...

Bureaucrats will dictate treatment for patients, or tell you what insurance plan you have to buy. The proposal does include new boards to make recommendations on evidence-based treatment. But they won't consider any individual cases or deny procedures for specific patients. The bill also sets minimum standards for insurance companies, creating a baseline for basic coverage. People will still be able to pick the plan they prefer. We received a chain e-mail that said, "The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None." We rated that Pants on Fire.

However, the family that does have to eat mac and cheese, does have to watch just broadcast TV on their old CRT type tv, can now afford health insurance-

And quit lying - you make a lot of money MM - you have talked about it many times, even showing us pictures of your 4th of July extravaganza.

Or are you projecting your fears, just as you are projecting a scenario that won't be happening under the current bill.
 
hrmwrm said:
considering the failure rate of historical societies, that's not saying much.
there is no ideology that is "proven to work". there are only those that have not yet lived long enough to fail.
Click to expand...

You really should know what you are talking about. Most historical societies were not founded on an ideology. In fact, America was one of the first such societies.

The unique form of classical liberalism that America was founded on has stood quite well for some time; it is proven to work. However, it is starting to show some cracks due to being diluted with socialism.

It is socialist societies that have tended to fall to tyranny.
 
shagdrum said:
You know that modern liberalism has almost nothing to do with liberalism in the classical, traditional sense except that both are ideologies. The word was co-opted and corrupted in the early and mid 20th century by progressive liars like you.

Conveniently ignoring that distinction does help you muddy the waters though, eh?

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
-Norman Thomas; six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America​
Click to expand...

And why did classic liberalism (as you claim an ideology) work - you stated that ideologies can't work...

And you subscribe to liberalism; an ideology (root word; ideal) that is based in a utopian vision which is abstracted from reality.
Click to expand...

Classic liberalism is based on utopian thought, it is as much an ideology as current liberal ideals. Or maybe it is only the ideologies that you agree with that have a chance of working...

I know that the current definition of liberal is different from the 1700s definition... but you were just so into the 'latin root mode' I couldn't resist Shag... Liberal means exactly what I posted...
 
foxpaws said:
Your family of 4 can be insured by Kaiser for only $10,000 a year... and you don't get any of the subsidies. I don't know what you are paying now, but that is pretty good, for really great insurance. Go out to that calculator at Kaiser that you posted - you will find some interesting things... if someone who makes 40,000 a year wants to insure his family with Kaiser (darn good insurance) it will now only cost him $2200 a year -

To fact check that insurance costs will be less for needy families (not really wealthy families like your MM - who have cadillac plans) under this plan, or me - whose company only offers a high deductible plan - my costs will go up.

4. The plan will lower health insurance premiums for most people. A few people will see significant reductions in what they pay for health insurance if they qualify for low-income tax credits to buy their policies. But the vast majority of Americans will see no decrease or a very slight decrease in premiums, according to projections. Obama said, "The costs for families (in the individual market) for the same type of coverage that they're currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent." We rated that Half True. Obama's statement is true only for those in the individual market who are buying comprehensive plans right now. For people buying high-deductible, low-cost plans, the premiums will increase, because they'll have to buy plans that offer more coverage.

And where do you get that the Fed will decide if your child gets treatment - no where - it isn't in the bill - your insurance company could decide that, but there is no public option. And illegal immigrants - want to point to the part of the bill that covers them. We covered them before with the policy of never turning anyone away at the emergency room. That isn't going to change - they still have to go to the emergency room - unless they buy health insurance like the rest of us.

To fact check that you won't be denied care...

Bureaucrats will dictate treatment for patients, or tell you what insurance plan you have to buy. The proposal does include new boards to make recommendations on evidence-based treatment. But they won't consider any individual cases or deny procedures for specific patients. The bill also sets minimum standards for insurance companies, creating a baseline for basic coverage. People will still be able to pick the plan they prefer. We received a chain e-mail that said, "The 'Health Choices Commissioner' will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None." We rated that Pants on Fire.

However, the family that does have to eat mac and cheese, does have to watch just broadcast TV on their old CRT type tv, can now afford health insurance-

And quit lying - you make a lot of money MM - you have talked about it many times, even showing us pictures of your 4th of July extravaganza.

Or are you projecting your fears, just as you are projecting a scenario that won't be happening under the current bill.
Click to expand...
Politifact has been shown to be biased and incorrect on several occasions. It has no credibility.

All you have to do to check for medical costs is look at Massachusetts. Everybody goes to the ER now, which is causing costs to skyrocket.
 
foxpaws said:
And why did classic liberalism (as you claim an ideology) work - you stated that ideologies can't work...
Click to expand...

Of course, the fact that I never stated (or implied) you what you are attributing to me doesn't matter, does it. What matters is what you assert my statements to mean.

Also, you are still perpetuating your lie about liberalism. Modern liberalism IS NOT LIBERALISM; in any sense of the term. It is simply abusing the word.

You are hell bent on perpetuating a lie; as usual.
 
shagdrum said:
Of course, the fact that I never stated (or implied) you what you are attributing to me doesn't matter, does it. What matters is what you want my statements to mean.

Also, you are still perpetuating your lie about liberalism. Modern liberalism IS NOT LIBERALISM; in any sense of the term. It is simply abusing the word.

You are hell bent on perpetuating a lie; as usual.
Click to expand...
Notice that when you start using the word 'Marxist' she immediately tries to categorize herself as liberal, and then redefine the word.

Sounds like you hit a nerve Shag.
 
shagdrum said:
Of course, the fact that I never stated (or implied) you what you are attributing to me doesn't matter, does it. What matters is what you want my statements to mean.

Also, you are still perpetuating your lie about liberalism. Modern liberalism IS NOT LIBERALISM; in any sense of the term. It is simply abusing the word.

You are hell bent on perpetuating a lie; as usual.
Click to expand...

Oddly, I have your quotes posted...

And maybe you would like to discuss the latin roots of the word progressive... since that is what we are doing, claiming that conservatism is totally embracing the latin origins of the word. Progressives no doubt only follow the creed described by the latin roots of the word progressive... pro- before + gradi to step.... to step forward... we aren't allowed to look beyond those latin roots...
 
fossten said:
Notice that when you start using the word 'Marxist' she immediately tries to categorize herself as liberal, and then redefine the word.

Sounds like you hit a nerve Shag.
Click to expand...

I am a centrist liberal - to the very definition of the phrase. I was in heaven when Clinton was in office - my ideal candidate. I worked to get a lot of Clinton's reforms passed. I worked hard to get Hillary in office (not quite the match to my political beliefs as Bill, but a really close second best). Marxist - not even close - since you don't have a clue Foss on what it entails to be a Marxist, you might want to re read Capital.
 
foxpaws said:
I am a centrist liberal - to the very definition of the phrase. I was in heaven when Clinton was in office - my ideal candidate. I worked to get a lot of Clinton's reforms passed. I worked hard to get Hillary in office (not quite the match to my political beliefs as Bill, but a really close second best). Marxist - not even close - since you don't have a clue Foss on what it entails to be a Marxist, you might want to re read Capital.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you memorized the important parts. :rolleyes:

There's no such thing as a centrist liberal - still making up terms, eh comrade?

And yes I have quite a good clue what a Marxist is. My first clue is being in favor of legalized theft - something that describes you and your Democrats.
 
fossten said:
I'm sure you memorized the important parts. :rolleyes:

There's no such thing as a centrist liberal - still making up terms, eh comrade?

And yes I have quite a good clue what a Marxist is. My first clue is being in favor of legalized theft - something that describes you and your Democrats.
Click to expand...

Clinton was often described as a centrist liberal... heck shag states our country is right center (conservative centrist)... why isn't there an equal place on the left?

And your last paragraph shows you really don't have a clue about Marxism... Capital isn't a hard read - you might want to check it out...
 
foxpaws said:
Clinton was often described as a centrist liberal... heck shag states our country is right center (conservative centrist)... why isn't there an equal place on the left?

And your last paragraph shows you really don't have a clue about Marxism... Capital isn't a hard read - you might want to check it out...
Click to expand...
Did Marx advocate forced redistribution of wealth or did he not? Did Marx advocate control of the masses or did he not?

Come on fox, I'm sure you have the pages marked and notes in the margins - let me know where it is.
 
foxpaws said:
Oddly, I have your quotes posted...
Click to expand...

Yep. And they only support your conclusion is you assume they support your conclusion. Can you say "circular reasoning"?

You have no idea what I am talking about and are simply distorting it to fit your lie.
 
foxpaws said:
I am a centrist liberal
Click to expand...
Modern liberalism is a radical ideology. Any middle ground between radicalism and conservatism is illusory. You have shown that you are a liberal through and through.
 
You took far left - so you need to take far right shag - anarchy... is there middle ground between radicalism and anarchy?

Oh I thought I was a Marxist - according to Foss - are the terms Liberal and Marxist exactly the same now?
 
foxpaws said:
You took far left - so you need to take far right shag - anarchy... is there middle ground between radicalism and anarchy?

Oh I thought I was a Marxist - according to Foss - are the terms Liberal and Marxist exactly the same now?
Click to expand...
Let me get this straight. You admit you're a liberal, Shag calls you a liberal, and yet you want to pit Shag against me?

Nice try.

FAIL.

Oh, I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions, fox...

I guess since you didn't answer, you must not have an answer.
 
foxpaws said:
You took far left - so you need to take far right shag - anarchy... is there middle ground between radicalism and anarchy?
Click to expand...

You are changing what I said. I said conservatism and radicalism.

More misdirection...
 
Fox, you're lucky I'm not a moderator. For all the times you lie and misquote people, I'd have banned you by now. You serve no purpose here other than to taunt and spread propaganda. You never contribute to topics, you never defend a position. All you do is mock and spread lies. You say you admire Clinton and are most like him - I agree to this extent - Clinton lied reflexively, to the point that whatever needed to be true on a given day was the truth. He clung to his lies to the bitter end. That's you to a 'T.' There is a special place in hell for people like you, and I will be there watching from above when you are tossed in.

You claim to go to church - I don't believe it for a second. If you actually do go to church, you certainly aren't under any conviction when you're there. You have a pathological problem and you have a seared conscience. I doubt God could reach you if He tried at this point.

Again - and this is for the moderators as well - YOU SERVE NO PURPOSE HERE other than to taunt, mock, and lie.
 
shagdrum said:
You are changing what I said. I said conservatism and radicalism.

More misdirection...
Click to expand...

But conservatism isn't on the same end of the right scale as your radical liberalism (I would assume communism in other terms).

Conservatism is only partly down to the bitter end of the right... you need to go all the way shag - there is no middle ground correct - communism or anarchy...

If there is no middle ground on the left - why would there be middle ground on the right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 402 (members: 3, guests: 399)
Back
Top