The Sentimental Nature of the Liberal Socialist

[red states rule]

He claims "higher moral authority" but he has not explained why that gives anyone the RIGHT TO TAKE from the rich (and the middle class) and forcefully give to the poor or to anybody who prefers to not to work for a living. In our country everyone has the freedom and the right to get rich if he so chooses to make the effort. Including doctors. People also have the freedom to be poor if that is how they choose to live their life. Being poor does not give you the RIGHT to take things from others. Socialized medicine is just another sentimental socialist scam to redistribute wealth and to control people.

The more people dependent on the governemnt - the happier liberals are - and the rest of us are poorer

 

[Superlative]

Liberals do that everyday

and if you disagree with them you are guilty of treason

Isnt that enyone who opposes the war or disagrees with your conservative views?

 

[red states rule]

Isnt that enyone who opposes the war or disagrees with your conservative views?

Sure, but I do not call the traitors (like libs do to those who disagree with them)

 

[Bern80]

I haven't been posting as much because I, as I said before, have been working. It also gets annoying when rsr shits on every thread in existence and very few people here seem to be able to have an argument without referring to the evil liberals who seem to embody every evil in existence merely because of their ideological view. But, since you seem to be so insistent, here you go.

Of course I'm insistent. Mainly because it is extremely rare on this board to have discussion with anyone, left or right, that doesn't degenerate into name calling.

The US spends vastly more than any other country does.

Is spending on technology a bad thing?

That is Congressional approval ratings. Make it a completely independent body and it will do much better.

Possibly, but again given our government who do you think would be put on such a committee. The best and brightest physicians, economists, etc. or congressinoal cronies? Again, I beleive one of the biggiest impedements to success of this program is not that socialized medicine in of itself couldn't work ('work' in my case being provide all with healthcare without a sacrafice to quality) it's the current way in which our government operates. i think it would be far more prudent to fix that first.

There are truly brilliant minds out there in all fields, one example is Thomas Friedman. He's sort of a global economist/foreign affairs guy. He does op-ed pieces from time to time and has written a couple of books and he is about as objective as they come, yet we don't see smart guys like that with cabinet positions.

I am not an economist. There are many who say that debt is good, and many who say it is bad. I reserve judgement considering I haven't studied the economy nor do I have an education in economics like these folks do.

Some is, yes. I would think though are government is past the 'some' that could be considered good.

Actually its a perfectly logical justification of slavery. If you believe that principle you ought to believe slavery is acceptable.

I guess you would first have to show that we are worse off because we can't have slaves. that would be the technical argument, but I don't really think it's a question of worse off. It may be less convenient, awful as that sounds, but I don't see that our lives are measurably worse because we don't have slavery anymore.

Secondly, this isn't really comparable to what I said because it is part of a whole other debate about whether a human can be owned. that doesn't really apply to this. We aren't talking about dominion over another. We're talking about is it right to make the majority worse off for the sake of the minority.

If you don't recall I quoted Spock before. And while fictitious the context was that he had to make a choice as to whether one would die so the rest could live.

Err if the quality for the 85% doesn't improve, it doesn't matter. What matters is if it goes down, and how much it goes down.

that's half right. it also depends on whether the improvement of the few is enough to justify the decline for the many.

You never know exactly how a reform will work or not. Thats life.

Not exactley no, but again why just run head long not knowing. We have plenty of information available to us right now that can legitimately be used to give us an idea of whether this will work or not.

This is true if and only if each number has the same probability of happening, which I don't think is the case.

Correct, I gave an example of that as well in the paragraph following the one you quoted. that is a more realistic representation of what would happen in real life.

I think its been pretty well established by now that zero is a number.

It is a number that represents null or nothing. It is not measurable.

Again the point was your definition of quality. Quality is a judgement of whether something like a product or service is good or bad. I took your surgeon example and asked a question; Again essentially what you are stating is that even if something is very good, like the surgeon you used, he's the best there is because there are operations that only he can do, your argument would have to be that because he is so expensive that some can't afford him he is therefore a bad surgeon under your definition of quality. Doesn't that sound a little off?

How much the health improves/decreases for various groups is not a random probability, it is something that happens as a result of actions.

right and one of the actions that has been shown to happen is that in a socialized system there is less money to spend on technology and resources.

The lack of information about how much things will increase/decrease does not justify you acting as if its random. Its not. It has to do with a variety of factors.

I haven't stated it would be random. Far from random. I believe there are several factors that eliminate such randomness in a way that would make it extremely difficult for your goal to come true.

 

[Bern80]

Feel free to answer to the above, but again my real question is why you're not making the ethical argument.

Would you be okay with a system of lesser quality (my defintion again) as long as it means all have access to it?

 

[red states rule]

Feel free to answer to the above, but again my real question is why you're not making the ethical argument.

Would you be okay with a system of lesser quality (my defintion again) as long as it means all have access to it?

Bern80, if this was a boxing match between you and Larkin - the ref would have stopped the slaughter a long time ago; and awarded the match to you

 

[Bern80]

Bern80, if this was a boxing match between you and Larkin - the ref would have stopped the slaughter a long time ago; and awarded the match to you

He isn't exactley answering the call of the bell is he.

 

[Superlative]

Sure, but I do not call the traitors (like libs do to those who disagree with them)

No, you call them he Anti American, Surrenderist, Blame America First Crowd.

 

[red states rule]

No, you call them he Anti American, Surrenderist, Blame America First Crowd.

and how are those accurate descriptions wrong?

 

[Superlative]

and how are those accurate descriptions wrong?

So, its not ok to call people traitors, but everything else you feel like calling them is A-OK?

 

[red states rule]

So, its not ok to call people traitors, but everything else you feel like calling them is A-OK?

Dems have out their party ahead of their country - for political reasons only

 

[mattskramer]

Sure, but I do not call the traitors (like libs do to those who disagree with them)

Using RSR’s logic against him:

Republicans have called Democrats “Traitors”. Aren’t you a Republican? Then it follows that you have called Democrats “traitors”. Basically, Republicans call Democrats “traitors”.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/multimedia/s_504197.html

Democratic leaders are acting like traitors by opposing the Iraq war, and President Bush must answer with a toughened stance, former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Monday.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "are getting very, very close to treason," DeLay said in a meeting with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

 

[red states rule]

Using RSR’s logic against him:

Republicans have called Democrats “Traitors”. Aren’t you a Republican? Then it follows that you have called Democrats “traitors”. Basically, Republicans call Democrats “traitors”.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/multimedia/s_504197.html

Democratic leaders are acting like traitors by opposing the Iraq war, and President Bush must answer with a toughened stance, former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Monday.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "are getting very, very close to treason," DeLay said in a meeting with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

From your link

DeLay says top Dems close to treason


Where did he call them traitors? Like RFK Jr calls anyone who does not cower to the myth of global warming

 

[mattskramer]

From your link

DeLay says top Dems close to treason


Where did he call them traitors? Like RFK Jr calls anyone who does not cower to the myth of global warming

Oh good god. Read the freaking article and you will find out when DeLay said that the Democrats are traitors. Never mind. That might be too difficult for you. I’ll answer your question – though you rarely answer mine. The date was Monday April 23, 2007. It was in a meeting with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Read the sentence that you typed in post number 323. You said, Sure, but I do not call the traitors…

Now read the first complete sentence in the article to which I provided a link. It says, Democratic leaders are acting like traitors … former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said…

I’m just throwing your gross generalities back at you. You often find one “bad apple” and conclude that liberals “in general” are that way. Tom DeLay did call Democrats Traitors. Read the first sentence in the article again. Therefore, following your logic, Republicans call Democrats “Traitors”.

I’m not talking about global warming. The title of the thread is not even about global warming. Anyway, you provided a specific statement instead of a gross generality. I'm impressed. So RFK, not the Democrat Party, supposedly calls anyone who does not cower to the myth of global warming a traitor. Please provide a link to a source that claims such.

 

[red states rule]

Oh good god. Read the freaking article and you will find out when DeLay said that the Democrats are traitors. Never mind. That might be too difficult for you. I’ll answer your question – though you rarely answer mine. The date was Monday April 23, 2007. It was in a meeting with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Read the sentence that you typed in post number 323. You said, Sure, but I do not call the traitors…

Now read the first complete sentence in the article to which I provided a link. It says, Democratic leaders are acting like traitors … former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said…

I’m just throwing your gross generalities back at you. You often find one “bad apple” and conclude that liberals “in general” are that way. Tom DeLay did call Democrats Traitors. Read the first sentence in the article again. Therefore, following your logic, Republicans call Democrats “Traitors”.

I’m not talking about global warming. The title of the thread is not even about global warming. Anyway, you provided a specific statement instead of a gross generality. I'm impressed. So RFK, not the Democrat Party, supposedly calls anyone who does not cower to the myth of global warming a traitor. Please provide a link to a source that claims such.

Delay did not say that - it is the reporters "analysis"

Again, form your link

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "are getting very, very close to treason," DeLay said in a meeting with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

"We have people dying," he said. "Not just our soldiers, but innocent citizens dying in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of these evil people, and you have your elected leaders making these kinds of statements that embolden the enemy. It's unbelievable."

 

[mattskramer]

Delay did not say that - it is the reporters "analysis"

Again, form your link

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "are getting very, very close to treason," DeLay said in a meeting with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

"We have people dying," he said. "Not just our soldiers, but innocent citizens dying in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of these evil people, and you have your elected leaders making these kinds of statements that embolden the enemy. It's unbelievable."

The article says:

Democratic leaders are acting like traitors by opposing the Iraq war, and President Bush must answer with a toughened stance, former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Monday.

It did not say, “We conclude that Delay thinks that the Democrat leaders are acting like traitors”.

The article said that he said that but, because the statement is not in quotes, you argue that it is a conclusion drawn by the paper. Sorry, but the paper says that he said it. Just because they did not put it into quotes does not negate the fact that paper claims that he said it. Go take a class on grammar.

 

[red states rule]

The article says:

Democratic leaders are acting like traitors by opposing the Iraq war, and President Bush must answer with a toughened stance, former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said Monday.

It did not say, “We conclude that Delay thinks that the Democrat leaders are acting like traitors”.

The article said that he said that but, because the statement is not in quotes, you argue that it is a conclusion drawn by the paper. Sorry, but the paper says that he said it. Just because they did not put it into quotes does not negate the fact that paper claims that he said it. Go take a class on grammar.

Mat, does being a "moderate" block your ability to read an article

The "Quote" you site, is the LEAD WRITTEN BY THE REPORTER

You are the fool who keeps bellowing how there is no liberal media bias - yet you are the one using the reporters lead to say how Delay called the Dems traitors

 

[red states rule]

Americans See Liberal Media Bias on TV News

Friday, July 13, 2007
Advertisment
By a 39% to 20% margin, American adults believe that the three major broadcast networks deliver news with a bias in favor of liberals. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% believe that ABC, CBS, and NBC deliver the news without any bias.

Similar results are found for CNN and National Public Radio (NPR). By a margin of 33% to 16%, Americans say that CNN has a liberal bias. The nation’s adults say the same about NPR by a 27% to 14% margin.

There is one major exception to the belief that media outlets have a liberal bias—Fox News. Thirty-one percent (31%) of Americans say it has a bias that favors conservatives while 15% say it has a liberal bias.

When it comes to delivering news without bias, 37% believe NPR accomplishes that goal. Thirty-six percent (36%) say the same for Fox and 32% believe it’s true of CNN. As noted earlier, just 25% believe the major broadcast networks deliver news in an unbiased manner. Results for other media outlets will be released over the next week.

Media fairness has emerged as a debate on Capitol Hill following the recent debate on immigration when public opinion overwhelmed the will of the Senate. Some lawmakers have called for a re-introduction of the “Fairness Doctrine” requiring stations to air competing points of view. Rasmussen Reports will release data on public attitudes towards that concept over the weekend.

Not surprisingly, there are huge partisan and ideological differences in the data. For example, among self-identified liberals, all of the media outlets are believed to have some net bias in favor of conservatives. However, 50% of liberals say that NPR is unbiased. Forty-three percent (43%) say the same about CNN. As for the major television networks, 49% of liberals believe they have a conservative bias. Just 10% of liberals see a liberal bias at ABC, CBS, and NBC.

for the complete article

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/americans_see_liberal_media_bias_on_tv_news

 

[red states rule]

Why Repugs Fear Media Fairness
The problem with conservatives is that they exist in a world of order, structure, and moral absolutes. Such primitive ideals preclude their tiny brains from comprehending the intellectual superiority of Liberal Talk Radio: a haven for moral relativism, logical fallacies, and hysterical hissy fits fueled by a thinly-veiled narcissistic loathing of the American people. As a result, the balance of political ideals among the dimwitted sheeple herd has lurched perilously to the right, and society is dangerously close to a return of the era of lynchings, cross burnings, and tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of Americans.

Hate Radio proponents insist, of course, that it's all "market driven", and that the greedy broadcasting monopolies only air what people want to hear. That's exactly why it's all so damn UNFAIR. Given the choice between listening to John Kerry badmouth the troops or Sean Hannity badmouth John Kerry, the mouthbreathing, knuckledragging, radio-listening hordes will typically pick the latter. So while a Woman's Right to Choose is sacred, the right to choose what one listens to on the radio is far too important to be trusted to the American sheeple. To preserve our democracy and insure that Liberal ideas never fall victim to the whims of those that they are inflicted upon, we must reinstate the Doctrine of Fairness our Founding Fathers tacked onto the 1st Amendment.

How anyone could oppose something called a "Fairness Doctrine" is beyond me, but the anti-Fairness conservatives hate it almost as much as they hate blacks and gays. That's because deep down they know they can't compete on a Free & Open Market when it's content is controlled by a federal bureaucracy operated by liberals. But the tide is turning. Despite being constantly bombarded by right-wing lies, the imbecilic idgets overwhelmingly returned Congress to its rightful owners last year, and the White House is Hillary's for the taking. We approach the dawn of a A New Age of Fairness, my friends, where poisonous conservative opinions in the media are tempered with an equal portion of tasty liberal goodness.

For every minute Chickenhawk Hannity spends blubbering about how we should all "support the Troops", he will be required by the Rules of Fairness to spend an equal amount of time calling them babykillers and rapists. Every hour fatty pillpopper Rush devotes to attacking Hillary, he will be bound by law to spend another hour sweetly praising her, proudly endorsing her, and making nice comments about her hair.

The Fairness Doctrine would not be restricted to the realm of radio and TV media, either. For instance, high school commencement addresses that extolt the benefits of working hard and becoming financially independent must also encourage students to do lots of drugs, have lots of meaningless sex, and get Liberal Arts degrees. It's only fair.

To some, a Fairness Doctrine may seem like a vast government entity regulating the content of political speech is an infringement on our most basic civil liberties, but "Freedom of Speech" can only exist as long as the selfish pinhead masses are forced to listen to what progressives believe they need to hear, rather than what they want to hear.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/

 

[mattskramer]

Mat, does being a "moderate" block your ability to read an article

The "Quote" you site, is the LEAD WRITTEN BY THE REPORTER

You are the fool who keeps bellowing how there is no liberal media bias - yet you are the one using the reporters lead to say how Delay called the Dems traitors

No. It looks like your strong pro-Republican bias and anti-liberal bias has stunted your reading skills. Now you change the subject as usual. No. I am not bellowing that there is no liberal media bias. I am merely providing some balance to your statements that there is liberal media bias.