Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
daveman
If this is your definition of conservatism, "the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible", then I am a conservative too.
I hate inefficient, wasteful government, I value the work ethic, and personal freedom.
Unfortunately, conservatism, doesn't mean this universally. Modern day right wingers have become a whiny and dispossessed crowd, often reduced to hurling abuse from the sidelines, rather than outlining a path to recovery. America needs robust political debate, viable philosophical alternatives, and a real option when it comes around to ballot time. This is what the electorate wants and demands from conservative thinkers, not the crass commentary of the conservative populists.
A. Ridiculous, dittohead.Nothing except the all-powerful oppressive government you want.Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke
Why do you folks on the right continue to perpetrate such lies?
Obamacare the ultimate nanny state monstrosity? The Affordable Health Care Act is exactly what Republicans proposed in 1993. Including the BIG Republican idea...the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.
Liberals and progressives were shut out...not single payer, no public option.
Doesn't it bother you at all to be that ignorant of history. To apparently repeat the idiocy you read on ignorant leftwing sites? You do know that in 1993 the healthcare overhaul was spearheaded by Hillary Clinton backed up with Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate and with Bill Clinton in the White House? And it was sooooo awful, that even the Democrats wouldn't vote to pass it? Soooooooo awful that it cost the Democrats control of the House and Senate in 1994. The GOP couldn't get a bill out of committee during that time, much less something out on the floor to debate. Every amendment offered was summarily immediately voted down.
You really ought to read up before you type sometimes.
WHEN will you stop lying?
History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010
Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision
The concept of the individual health insurance mandate originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate.
I look at the role of Government as that of a referee. They are not there to help one side or the other but to call a fair game. If one side is getting all the calls, you end up with a lopsided score. Conservatives seem hellbent that if one side can get as high a score as possible...they win.
I look at the role of Government as that of a referee. They are not there to help one side or the other but to call a fair game. If one side is getting all the calls, you end up with a lopsided score. Conservatives seem hellbent that if one side can get as high a score as possible...they win.
Referee of what, how much of your property you get to keep?
daveman
If this is your definition of conservatism, "the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible", then I am a conservative too.
I hate inefficient, wasteful government, I value the work ethic, and personal freedom.
Unfortunately, conservatism, doesn't mean this universally. Modern day right wingers have become a whiny and dispossessed crowd, often reduced to hurling abuse from the sidelines, rather than outlining a path to recovery. America needs robust political debate, viable philosophical alternatives, and a real option when it comes around to ballot time. This is what the electorate wants and demands from conservative thinkers, not the crass commentary of the conservative populists.
I look at the role of Government as that of a referee. They are not there to help one side or the other but to call a fair game. If one side is getting all the calls, you end up with a lopsided score. Conservatives seem hellbent that if one side can get as high a score as possible...they win.
I look at the role of Government as that of a referee. They are not there to help one side or the other but to call a fair game. If one side is getting all the calls, you end up with a lopsided score. Conservatives seem hellbent that if one side can get as high a score as possible...they win.
daveman
If this is your definition of conservatism, "the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible", then I am a conservative too.
I hate inefficient, wasteful government, I value the work ethic, and personal freedom.
Unfortunately, conservatism, doesn't mean this universally. Modern day right wingers have become a whiny and dispossessed crowd, often reduced to hurling abuse from the sidelines, rather than outlining a path to recovery. America needs robust political debate, viable philosophical alternatives, and a real option when it comes around to ballot time. This is what the electorate wants and demands from conservative thinkers, not the crass commentary of the conservative populists.
I look at the role of Government as that of a referee. They are not there to help one side or the other but to call a fair game. If one side is getting all the calls, you end up with a lopsided score. Conservatives seem hellbent that if one side can get as high a score as possible...they win.
That was exactly what Karl Marx said. The role of government would be to bring down the rich and raise the poor and level the playing field for everybody. And once that was done, the government could go away and everybody would live in perfect harmony. Of course since it hadn't been tried before, he didn't take into acount that NO government, once it achieves that kind of power, EVER voluntarily gives it up.
The problem with your 'referee' analogy, however, is that it gives the government total power to pick winners or loses, to skew a game any way it wants it to go, to punish those it doesn't like and reward those it likes. And there is nobody to tell it that it has to play by anybody's rules but its own and it is free to make up those rules as it goes. So naturally, the rules will ensure that the government remains firmly in place and whatever the fallout for anybody else is would be a secondary consideration.
And, if the intended purpose is that nobody is able to run up the score, that means that the least talented and productive players will be rewarded and the skilled achievers must be punished.
And voila, we are right back to the monarchal system that the Founders risked all their blood and treasure to free us from.
I look at the role of Government as that of a referee. They are not there to help one side or the other but to call a fair game. If one side is getting all the calls, you end up with a lopsided score. Conservatives seem hellbent that if one side can get as high a score as possible...they win.
cutesy way to describe wealth redistribution
I look at the role of Government as that of a referee. They are not there to help one side or the other but to call a fair game. If one side is getting all the calls, you end up with a lopsided score. Conservatives seem hellbent that if one side can get as high a score as possible...they win.
That was exactly what Karl Marx said. The role of government would be to bring down the rich and raise the poor and level the playing field for everybody. And once that was done, the government could go away and everybody would live in perfect harmony. Of course since it hadn't been tried before, he didn't take into acount that NO government, once it achieves that kind of power, EVER voluntarily gives it up.
The problem with your 'referee' analogy, however, is that it gives the government total power to pick winners or loses, to skew a game any way it wants it to go, to punish those it doesn't like and reward those it likes. And there is nobody to tell it that it has to play by anybody's rules but its own and it is free to make up those rules as it goes. So naturally, the rules will ensure that the government remains firmly in place and whatever the fallout for anybody else is would be a secondary consideration.
And, if the intended purpose is that nobody is able to run up the score, that means that the least talented and productive players will be rewarded and the skilled achievers must be punished.
And voila, we are right back to the monarchal system that the Founders risked all their blood and treasure to free us from.
The main problem with the government as referee is each side trying to bribe the referee to call the game for their side. They even hire lobbyists to try to influence the referee
A level playing field does not mean that the skilled players will be punished. On a level field, the most skilled players will still win. However, a level playing field ensures that the unskilled players do not get to pass as skilled players
That was exactly what Karl Marx said. The role of government would be to bring down the rich and raise the poor and level the playing field for everybody. And once that was done, the government could go away and everybody would live in perfect harmony. Of course since it hadn't been tried before, he didn't take into acount that NO government, once it achieves that kind of power, EVER voluntarily gives it up.
The problem with your 'referee' analogy, however, is that it gives the government total power to pick winners or loses, to skew a game any way it wants it to go, to punish those it doesn't like and reward those it likes. And there is nobody to tell it that it has to play by anybody's rules but its own and it is free to make up those rules as it goes. So naturally, the rules will ensure that the government remains firmly in place and whatever the fallout for anybody else is would be a secondary consideration.
And, if the intended purpose is that nobody is able to run up the score, that means that the least talented and productive players will be rewarded and the skilled achievers must be punished.
And voila, we are right back to the monarchal system that the Founders risked all their blood and treasure to free us from.
The main problem with the government as referee is each side trying to bribe the referee to call the game for their side. They even hire lobbyists to try to influence the referee
A level playing field does not mean that the skilled players will be punished. On a level field, the most skilled players will still win. However, a level playing field ensures that the unskilled players do not get to pass as skilled players
Exactly. So for the conservative, enforcing the rules means everybody plays by exactly the same rules, incurs the same penalities, and those who produce get more playing time and better pay. That is not decided by the federal government.
To keep the referee from taking bribes or home teaming somebody, you take away the ability of the federal government to bestow any favors or benevolence of any kind on anybody. And any referee who makes too many bad calls is replaced as is the one who is obviously showing any kind of favoritism for one team vs another.
Conservatives can see the virtue in such a plan. Most Leftists generally reject it because the truth is they WANT the government to bestow favor on certain groups and they WANT the government to have the power to order whatever sort of society they think they want.
So? You do know, don't you, that Republican and conservative are not synonymous?Why do you folks on the right continue to perpetrate such lies?
Obamacare the ultimate nanny state monstrosity? The Affordable Health Care Act is exactly what Republicans proposed in 1993. Including the BIG Republican idea...the INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.
Liberals and progressives were shut out...not single payer, no public option.
Doesn't it bother you at all to be that ignorant of history. To apparently repeat the idiocy you read on ignorant leftwing sites? You do know that in 1993 the healthcare overhaul was spearheaded by Hillary Clinton backed up with Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate and with Bill Clinton in the White House? And it was sooooo awful, that even the Democrats wouldn't vote to pass it? Soooooooo awful that it cost the Democrats control of the House and Senate in 1994. The GOP couldn't get a bill out of committee during that time, much less something out on the floor to debate. Every amendment offered was summarily immediately voted down.
You really ought to read up before you type sometimes.
WHEN will you stop lying?
History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010
Republican Origins of Democratic Health Care Provision
The concept of the individual health insurance mandate originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate.
You know what? Conservatives want EVERYONE to get a high score.daveman
If this is your definition of conservatism, "the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible", then I am a conservative too.
I hate inefficient, wasteful government, I value the work ethic, and personal freedom.
Unfortunately, conservatism, doesn't mean this universally. Modern day right wingers have become a whiny and dispossessed crowd, often reduced to hurling abuse from the sidelines, rather than outlining a path to recovery. America needs robust political debate, viable philosophical alternatives, and a real option when it comes around to ballot time. This is what the electorate wants and demands from conservative thinkers, not the crass commentary of the conservative populists.
I look at the role of Government as that of a referee. They are not there to help one side or the other but to call a fair game. If one side is getting all the calls, you end up with a lopsided score. Conservatives seem hellbent that if one side can get as high a score as possible...they win.
A. Ridiculous, dittohead.Nothing except the all-powerful oppressive government you want.Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government.
Edmund Burke
B. So the Pub response to Hillycare WAS Obamacare. They were just lying, anyway- they love the incredible profit of NO system. Bob Dole also said he wanted Obamacare.
c. Rasmussen is FOS- We love freedom, but also want gov't to protect and serve. Let's get back to trusting gov't, for good reason. 80% in 1960, less than 20% today after Nixon, Raygun, and Booosh- today's BS Pubs will not be involved...oBAMACARE WILL BE KEY.
Wrong. Conservatives want the same rules to apply to everyone. It's the left that likes to say the rules don't apply to their favored groups.I look at the role of Government as that of a referee. They are not there to help one side or the other but to call a fair game. If one side is getting all the calls, you end up with a lopsided score. Conservatives seem hellbent that if one side can get as high a score as possible...they win.
Referee of what, how much of your property you get to keep?
More like enforcing the rules. If one side gets to do whatever they wish while the other gets held to strict standards.....it ain't exactly fair
Conservatives want to play the game without any rules
The main problem with the government as referee is each side trying to bribe the referee to call the game for their side. They even hire lobbyists to try to influence the referee
A level playing field does not mean that the skilled players will be punished. On a level field, the most skilled players will still win. However, a level playing field ensures that the unskilled players do not get to pass as skilled players
Exactly. So for the conservative, enforcing the rules means everybody plays by exactly the same rules, incurs the same penalities, and those who produce get more playing time and better pay. That is not decided by the federal government.
To keep the referee from taking bribes or home teaming somebody, you take away the ability of the federal government to bestow any favors or benevolence of any kind on anybody. And any referee who makes too many bad calls is replaced as is the one who is obviously showing any kind of favoritism for one team vs another.
Conservatives can see the virtue in such a plan. Most Leftists generally reject it because the truth is they WANT the government to bestow favor on certain groups and they WANT the government to have the power to order whatever sort of society they think they want.
I get your point
The only way conservatives think big business can win is if you take away the whistle from the referee
daveman
If this is your definition of conservatism, "the belief that people should be free to succeed on their own; that success comes from work; that government should have as minimal an impact on personal lives as possible", then I am a conservative too.
I hate inefficient, wasteful government, I value the work ethic, and personal freedom.
Unfortunately, conservatism, doesn't mean this universally. Modern day right wingers have become a whiny and dispossessed crowd, often reduced to hurling abuse from the sidelines, rather than outlining a path to recovery. America needs robust political debate, viable philosophical alternatives, and a real option when it comes around to ballot time. This is what the electorate wants and demands from conservative thinkers, not the crass commentary of the conservative populists.
I look at the role of Government as that of a referee. They are not there to help one side or the other but to call a fair game. If one side is getting all the calls, you end up with a lopsided score. Conservatives seem hellbent that if one side can get as high a score as possible...they win.
That was exactly what Karl Marx said. The role of government would be to bring down the rich and raise the poor and level the playing field for everybody. And once that was done, the government could go away and everybody would live in perfect harmony. Of course since it hadn't been tried before, he didn't take into acount that NO government, once it achieves that kind of power, EVER voluntarily gives it up.
The problem with your 'referee' analogy, however, is that it gives the government total power to pick winners or losers, to skew a game any way it wants it to go, to punish those it doesn't like and reward those it likes. And there is nobody to tell it that it has to play by anybody's rules but its own and it is free to make up those rules as it goes. So naturally, the rules will ensure that the government remains firmly in place and whatever the fallout for anybody else is would be a secondary consideration.
And, if the intended purpose is that nobody is able to run up the score, that means that the least talented and productive players will be rewarded and the skilled achievers must be punished.
And voila, we are right back to the monarchal system that the Founders risked all their blood and treasure to free us from.
