What do conservatives stand for? What do liberals stand for?

Comments

• spot on!!!.... spot on !!!!

  • Report
  

  by buxtonite ..slowly losing my mind on September 25th, 2009

• Thats too funny.
  +6

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on September 26th, 2009

• I regret that I can only give you a +6.

  • Report
  

  by Moongrim on September 26th, 2009

• Good video i havent heard this before, very good.

  • Report
  

  by MasterS on September 26th, 2009

• This guy also wrote a beyond-excellent book called "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" which chronicles the myriad ways that we're destroying our only home, Earth. For those who feel they have a little too much happiness or optimism in their lives, this book will be sure to knock ya down a peg or two.

  • Report
  

  by Aristocles on September 26th, 2009

• Love Tom, Ed, and Norman!

  • Report
  

  by Erin on January 27th, 2012

Comments

• Good one.
  +6

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on September 26th, 2009

• Didn't know that. So essentially conservatives are more liberal?

  • Report
  

  by Sethis on January 27th, 2012

Comments

• Love it!

  • Report
  

  by Dodgy Dog in a Sable COAT on November 4th, 2009

• So true. So very true! +

  • Report
  

  by Baggins on November 4th, 2009

• A lovely story. Of course a wild oversimplification of national policy.
  .
  As a conservative I would have to look at the costs of things.
  .
  How might the mother of 2 kids who's father dies without benefit of life insurance because as hard as he work he couldn't afford it - leaving her with the problem of caring for the kids while she works as a secretary for $10 or 12 an hour handle the isse with your little girl's situation?

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on November 4th, 2009

• What a person chooses to afford is and should be a matter free choice, not determined for you by government.
  If you think medical insurance is expensive now, just wait until the government starts paying for it as no level of government, local, state, or federal, has any money except what they take away from YOU in taxes.
  And, by the way, the government plan will not be providing life insurance either.
  Socialism is not what built this country but it can definitely tear it down.
  The longest running socialist experiment in world history was the former Soviet Union (USSR) and where are they now?

  • Report
  

  by Heather108 on November 4th, 2009

• It's a failed state, the USSR. Anytime you're given the choice of a Utopian government or a Republic, you'll be sorry if you pick the Utopian government.

  • Report
  

  by Baggins on November 4th, 2009

• Heather - you neatly avoided my question.
  .
  One has a choice when one can afford it.
  .
  Socialized medicine is no closer to socialist than public schools, public roads, publicly funded criminal justice and military...
  .
  Every western country on the planet except the US has some for of socialized medicine. None of them have gone bankrupt because of it. Why would you expect your country to fail where everyone else has not failed?
  .
  I am from a former socialist country. I actually know what it looks like.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on November 4th, 2009

• Shakes his head.

  • Report
  

  by Baggins on November 5th, 2009

• Skidoo, I did not avoid your question.
  In your case of a mother with 2 kids and dear old dad has died, left town, got drunk and quit his job, whatever,,, caring for her family is the individual responsibility of parents and in no way the responsibility of any level of government.
  Our Constitution charges government to "provide for the common welfare", key word being COMMON as in providing public schools, public roads, criminal justice system, monetary system, and the military, as a benefit to all citizens.
  There is absolutely no authority constitutionally granted to any level of government to take money away from one citizen by taxation and use it as a direct gift to another individual citizen no matter what the need may be.
  I manage my life by not having children that I cannot afford to provide for and I have the right to expect others to do likewise. Also, I do understand that accidents happen, that's why we have State sponsored adoption agencies.

  • Report
  

  by Heather108 on November 5th, 2009

• It comes down to choices. There is nothing about medical care that specifically excludes it from "common good" - in fact i think a rather strong argument can be made that it applies at least as strongly as roads and schools. Since everyone has need of medical care, perhaps even a stronger one.
  .
  But I wonder, IF a plan or plans could be proposed that would significantly reduce the cost of health care without a significant drop in services - say something relatively simple like having the government buy meds in bulk and the resell them at cost (this would preserve profits for the pharmaceuticals since only economies of scale would come to play - not government mandating prices by law) - wouldn't that be better?

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on November 6th, 2009

• It would be better for the end user of the pharmaceutical products but Walgreen, CVX, Rite-Aid, etc., and thousands of privately owned community drug stores and the 16 million employees of those drug stores may not see it as improvement.
  All that would be necessary to reduce drug costs would be for the FDA to shorten the protected market time for the manufacturing of generics, effectively cutting drug retail prices in half.
  Many generic drugs are made outside the US, so even that may cause the shutdown of research facilities as was recently done by Eli Lilly at their RTP location.
  Remember the rule from physics class: "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction"
  The true pathway to lower prices is to get politicians and their misguided regulating agents totally out of all free market business as every cost of providing a product or service must be paid by the end users.
  Personally, I would rather have the services of a government paid financial advisor than a doctor.

  • Report
  

  by Heather108 on November 6th, 2009

• Dunno where you got a government paid doctor.
  And Walgreen may or may not be upset - luckily drugs aren't all they sell. And putting the 16mil (really? That's A LOT of Walgrenes...) over the needs or 300mil remainder is interesting logic ... but your entitles to it. Of course even they would benefit from cheaper drugs.
  .
  Actually - a larger percent is paid by drug comapnies for marketing than for R&D. So if they quit sending GP's on "training sessions" in Hawaii and all the price would go down.
  .
  But - as I mentioned - simple economies of scale would reduce the prices id they were bought in big enough bulk. Nothing else would have to be done. The same distribution could be used... pharmacies both local Mom&Pop as well as transnational corporations.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on November 6th, 2009

• 1- Obama Health Care Corp. = Government paid Doctors.
  2- Government Drug Distribution Corp. = A Federal Agency larger than the US Postal Service.
  Of course we could always have the drugs made in China because with good old Uncle Sammy paying for everything, we probably would not even need jobs.
  I'm thinking there must be a flaw in this plan somewhere but it sure does sound good.
  Socialism always sounds good, the German philosopher Karl Marx proved that as Russia went for it hook, line, and sinker... ;~)
  I hope we're smarter than that, but perhaps not.

  • Report
  

  by Heather108 on November 6th, 2009

• It amazes me - I talk about one specific possibility - bulk drug purchase contracts - and you see socialism.
  .
  So by your logic schools kids should all negotiate their own books prices and desk rentals, road usage should be paid for by the mile, and soldiers should all buy their own guns and ammo from the local gun shop. Because after all - any government buying power is a huge agency and socialism.
  .
  I am actually from a former socialist country and know what it looks like. I also know why it doesn't work.
  .
  And I wouldn't worry too much about being smarter. I don't think you're in much danger of that.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on November 6th, 2009

• It's strange that the only things you list like school, roads, and the military are all things that everyone benefits from and are the proper activities of government.
  You have never tried to justify government paying for medical care and doctors for one individual person.
  As in a case that I need an operation and the cost is paid by your taxes because I choose not to work, and we do have millions that choose not to work and are totally dependant on government subsidies, many of them for three generations, going back to their parents and grand parents.
  You're correct, I'm not smart enough to pay for everything I'd like to have and I sure can't take on another person's medical bills.

  • Report
  

  by Heather108 on November 6th, 2009

• I dunno. I kinda think all people need medical services as much as schools and roads.
  .
  I'm just looking at costs. Nothing else. I am certainly not looking at made up stories about people who "choose" not to work or pay medical bills.
  .
  You ever try to get insured at any price for a preexisting condition? Ever know of anyone turned down for a job because of such a condition? It does happen in your system.
  .
  It's not all about those terrible people who choose to live in poverty for generations even though every opportunity to move up is offered. A large part of the US problem is that good, moral, even God Fearing, hard working people simply can't get medical coverage. By the time a person is 40 or 50 - they are still healthy but the hint of a condition might show up - and no insurer will cover that anymore.
  .
  Many "conservatives" like to oversimplify in these moralistic fairytales - but nothing is that simple.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on November 6th, 2009

• Whereever you work, a good part of your retirement 401k funds are probably invested in several insurance companies common stock.
  Do you really want insurance companies to do things that would wipe out your retirement savings?
  Ohhhhh helllll nooooo, I'll bet you want me to pay my own bills.

  • Report
  

  by Heather108 on November 6th, 2009

• I don't have a 401k. I have diversified investments and any funds I have I expect the fund manager to react to market conditions. And - no matter what % might be in insurance - I certainly don't own a big enough % so that I gain more in profits that I lose in infalted prices. Do you have a very large holding in health insurance? It would explain some of your "interesting" convolutions of logic.
  Math - it's a bitch.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on November 7th, 2009

• "Health insurance" companies are usually just a division of one or more of the large life insurance companies.
  If you happen to be one of the many millions of individuals and businesses that are invested in mutual funds, and the company that pays your wages and the State Treasury where you live is probably included in that group, you should take a look at the percentage invested in insurance stocks as that has always been a favorite of fund managers.
  One interesting convolution of logic is your original idea that your future security does not depend on the insurance industry and the NYSE.
  Even your ability to buy a home and drive a car depends on the insurance industry.
  p,s.- In all fairness I must qualify that last statement. In this State a person may elect to make a cash liability bond deposit of $500,000 with the State Treasury and not be required to buy auto liability insurance.

  • Report
  

  by Heather108 on November 7th, 2009

• I think you are getting way off topic on the original question.

  • Report
  

  by Dodgy Dog in a Sable COAT on November 7th, 2009

• Ummmm, not really, it's the insurance industry currently under attack by the Obama gang.

  • Report
  

  by Heather108 on November 7th, 2009

• I agree. We have gone way off the topic.
  The US spends more on health than any other country. The share of GDP spent is growing higher and higher. Insurance is more and more difficult to get since companies are cutting it.
  .
  Those who feel keeping the profits of the health industry high and safe is more important that their own and their families health are certainly entitled to that opinion. I have to suspect, however, that they are in the minority.
  .
  I'd also like to pint out - that there are perfectly medical industries in other rest of the world - the same rest of the world with public health systems.
  .
  But that's the last I'm going to say on this. Have the last word is you like and the I'll move on.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on November 8th, 2009

• I love it..

  • Report
  

  by Rambo808 on January 27th, 2012

• Because you offered the job to the girl. No mention was made of any offer being made to the homeless guy.
  
  Also - is the homeless guy homeless because he lost both legs in the Iraqi war and would have a hard time doing that job? or because he's schizophrenic and there is no public health that would hospitalize him?
  
  I agree - if the girl bought that line you were correct to welcome her to the Republican party where making up a little story with a good moral lesson (in this case, that poverty is due to a personal choice on the part of the poor and/or they are simply lazy and so they deserve it) is far more important than actual facts.
  
  I wonder, might that be why conservatives and the strongly religious tend to be the same people?

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on January 28th, 2012

• You may be correct about religious people tending to also be conservative, although I would not fit into that group.
  As generalities go, you will have to admit that personal responsibility goes a long toward being able to live above the poverty line.
  I have a project for you Skidoo, and you may find this on line.
  1- Read the essay "Compensation" by Ralph Waldo Emerson, read it all, and read it three times.
  2- Do a little research on why so many Canadians come to the US for hospital and other medical care,,, at their own expense.

  • Report
  

  by Heather108 on January 28th, 2012

Comments

• Fair enough.
  +6

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on October 24th, 2008

• SIGH, you keep grouping everybody together. When will you understand that not everybody is the same. Just so that you are proven wrong again. I am a conservative, and I do not stand for fear and hate.

  • Report
  

  by advracer on October 24th, 2008

• advracer - I agree with you, actually with both of you.
  .
  At no time is a group description accurate for each of its members. I know many conservatives who are fine, caring, thoughtful people. And I know plenty of liberals who are pin-headed and attack anyone who doesn't agree with everything they say.
  .
  But having said that, current conservatism or republicanism has been largely defined by the loudest mouths. Bush ruled via fear and hate - certainly. McCain is falling to that low now as well. Palin has been getting mighty close to inciting violence. And the people who constantly harp on Obama's birth certificate, middle name, skin color, tenuous associations, and falsely claim him to be a Muslim (and act as if that matters) and attack those who disagree with such venom, hatred, and suggested violence certainly do create the group image of conservatives.
  .
  One problem is that those good and decent conservatives don't really do much to counter the others.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on October 25th, 2008

• Until your type do something to retake your party and political philosophy or to differentiate yourselves from those loudmouths, you will be lumped together.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on October 25th, 2008

Comments

• Got ya. I feel similarly.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on October 19th, 2008

• Good answer scott

  • Report
  

  by advracer on October 30th, 2008

Comments

Comments

• Fair enough.
  +6

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on September 26th, 2009

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments