What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[Liability]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

Because Liberals always win the arguments?

No. In the REAL world!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating

More-often-than-not......

....we're RIGHT!!!!

​

 

[Vidi]

Exactly. He can't do it, but he has the leftwing talking points memorized and has apparently made himself believe they can't be challenged.

The ONLY way ANY country can provide healthcare more cheaply than the private sector is by rationing that healthcare and/or shifting the cost to something else to make the books on the healthcare appear balanced. Before the government got involved, the U.S. healthcare system was affordable for more people. We all paid out of pocket for the routine doctor's visit, the routine vaccinations and shots, the treatment for that broken finger in the E.R. And it didn't break the bank either. Those who couldn't pay got treated anyway and got a bill in the mail that they could pay out over time if necessary. There were privately owned charity clinics and hospitals for the few truly indigent.

The day that Medicare went into effect, followed by Medicaid some years later, the costs began sharply rising and have spiraled out of control the more the government has become involved.

But arguing with liberals is frustrating because apparently none want to even think about that, much less take a close look at it. It would be way too upsetting to the leftist/liberal mantra so they just deny it without having a clue whether it is accurate or not.

Yes there were privately owned charity clinics and hospitals. They were horribly underfunded and provided substandard care.

Doctors made house calls, and could be paid with a chicken.

There was no open heart surgery, no heart transplants, no stints, all forms of cancer were death sentences.

There's been hundreds of advances since then and they all cost a lot of money.

I will happily discuss actual issues with anyone...hell, someone on this board showed me some interesting data last night that forced me to reconsider my previous position. But you have to come at me with reality, not some fantasy that the past was better just because you say it was.

Solutions always create a new set of problems. Nothing is perfect. Nothing ever will be.

There is no Utopia.

Sorry but your opinions of what healthcare used to be don't stand up in the face of the evidence. I raised a family without benefit of any government insurance or mandates (thank God) and though for most of those years we were of very modest means, we went without no medical care that any of us needed. Ever.

Just like we pay for routine auto and home maintenance, we paid for routine healthcare out of pocket. We carried a large deductible on our insurance and rarely ever met that deductible. But the insurance was there for the rare hospitalization during those years. And that insurance was affordable because doctors weren't required to run a bunch of tests that were not medically indicated and wasn't paying for shots and prescriptions and routine office visits and the occasional trip to the E.R.

Yes medical science has improved substantially over the years but that has been in spite of government meddling, not because of it. And if we get the government out of it, and let the free market work, it will become affordable again.

You were lucky. Many aren't as lucky as you.

As far as costs? Ever need a heart stent?

What the going rate for raw stainless steel?

Which machines are used to manufacture them? What the their costs, both initial purchase and running costs?

What are the non production costs? Such as clean rooms and quality assurance?

Until you can answer those questions, you cannot have any real concept of who is to blame for health care costs.

At Aurora Sinai Medical Center in Wisconsin, placement of one cardiac stent that is coated with long-release medication to prevent scar tissue from reclogging the artery carries a median hospital charge of $41,228, according estimates from the Wisconsin Hospital Association.

The average American household takes in $63,091 per year.*So just about two thirds a yearly income to cover the cost of one stent.

I've made guns, bombs, bomb disposal robots, auto parts and medical devices over the years. Costs go up because we are making more and more intricate, tighter toleranced parts out of more and more expensive materials.

That takes precision, and precision costs.

 

[Syphon]

What makes you believe our federal government can do things any more efficiently and less expensively?
I challenge you to provide evidence of any federal program which operates on time and within budget.

You can not compare the private industry and government, as private industry can choose either not to provide an individual or business with service. the government can not. Look at the VA, Medicare, SS and Medicaid. If the government chose not to pay for services the private sector would have a shit fit. Now if they could deny services such as the private sector does, they could become extremely efficient. Name a private industry that has the same responsibility of the federal government. What private industry has mandatory spending? I challenge you to prove me wrong

You CAN compare them precisely because the lack of choice and freedom are two of the main points that need to be discussed in the comparison. Saying, "We're going to have the government take over from private industry, BUT YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE TWO! No attempts at discussing which is better will be allowed!" is just another liberal attempt to impose utopia on others against their will, and silence any opposition.

you still didnt answer my question. show me a private industry that must operate under the same rules of the fed. show me a private industry that has mandatory spending, and must service all people the same exact way.
can the fed tell people under medicare that they wont serve them? can they drop people on medicare for getting sick? can they rate people based on pre-existing conditions? no. but private industry can. there is also no lack of freedom within the health care market right now. there are plenty of providers to choose from.

we can look at the USPS as another example. who provides the same exact service that the post office does? not even UPS, Fed Ex or DHL can provide the exact same service for the rate. they provide a similar service at a much higher cost of service. should UPS, FedEx and DHL provide daily delivery to every home in america of mail? if that actually happened then we could actually compare them to the USPS.

are you going to make private industry operate under the same rules as the fed now?

 

[Vidi]

You can not compare the private industry and government, as private industry can choose either not to provide an individual or business with service. the government can not. Look at the VA, Medicare, SS and Medicaid. If the government chose not to pay for services the private sector would have a shit fit. Now if they could deny services such as the private sector does, they could become extremely efficient. Name a private industry that has the same responsibility of the federal government. What private industry has mandatory spending? I challenge you to prove me wrong

You CAN compare them precisely because the lack of choice and freedom are two of the main points that need to be discussed in the comparison. Saying, "We're going to have the government take over from private industry, BUT YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE TWO! No attempts at discussing which is better will be allowed!" is just another liberal attempt to impose utopia on others against their will, and silence any opposition.

you still didnt answer my question. show me a private industry that must operate under the same rules of the fed. show me a private industry that has mandatory spending, and must service all people the same exact way.
can the fed tell people under medicare that they wont serve them? can they drop people on medicare for getting sick? can they rate people based on pre-existing conditions? no. but private industry can. there is also no lack of freedom within the health care market right now. there are plenty of providers to choose from.

we can look at the USPS as another example. who provides the same exact service that the post office does? not even UPS, Fed Ex or DHL can provide the exact same service for the rate. they provide a similar service at a much higher cost of service. should UPS, FedEx and DHL provide daily delivery to every home in america of mail? if that actually happened then we could actually compare them to the USPS.

are you going to make private industry operate under the same rules as the fed now?

In fact, go sit outside the post office for a day. You will see Fed Ex and UPS dropping off packages that are then delivered by the post office. This is especially prevalent in rural areas where it's not cost effective for Fed Ex and UPS to send out trucks on a daily basis. If they had to, their costs would skyrocket and be passed along to the consumer.

Additionally, in some places, the reverse is true. FedEx or UPS will ship first class mail for USPS,. It's this symbiotic relationship between public and private that allows both to be profitable.

 

[koshergrl]

I am so disgusted with the mindset that says that if something is hard, nobody should have to do it, and if something is expensive, somebody else should pay for it.

Life is hard, and you are responsible for yourself. Grow the fuck up, loser.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes there were privately owned charity clinics and hospitals. They were horribly underfunded and provided substandard care.

Doctors made house calls, and could be paid with a chicken.

There was no open heart surgery, no heart transplants, no stints, all forms of cancer were death sentences.

There's been hundreds of advances since then and they all cost a lot of money.

I will happily discuss actual issues with anyone...hell, someone on this board showed me some interesting data last night that forced me to reconsider my previous position. But you have to come at me with reality, not some fantasy that the past was better just because you say it was.

Solutions always create a new set of problems. Nothing is perfect. Nothing ever will be.

There is no Utopia.

Sorry but your opinions of what healthcare used to be don't stand up in the face of the evidence. I raised a family without benefit of any government insurance or mandates (thank God) and though for most of those years we were of very modest means, we went without no medical care that any of us needed. Ever.

Just like we pay for routine auto and home maintenance, we paid for routine healthcare out of pocket. We carried a large deductible on our insurance and rarely ever met that deductible. But the insurance was there for the rare hospitalization during those years. And that insurance was affordable because doctors weren't required to run a bunch of tests that were not medically indicated and wasn't paying for shots and prescriptions and routine office visits and the occasional trip to the E.R.

Yes medical science has improved substantially over the years but that has been in spite of government meddling, not because of it. And if we get the government out of it, and let the free market work, it will become affordable again.

You were lucky. Many aren't as lucky as you.

As far as costs? Ever need a heart stent?

What the going rate for raw stainless steel?

Which machines are used to manufacture them? What the their costs, both initial purchase and running costs?

What are the non production costs? Such as clean rooms and quality assurance?

Until you can answer those questions, you cannot have any real concept of who is to blame for health care costs.

At Aurora Sinai Medical Center in Wisconsin, placement of one cardiac stent that is coated with long-release medication to prevent scar tissue from reclogging the artery carries a median hospital charge of $41,228, according estimates from the Wisconsin Hospital Association.

The average American household takes in $63,091 per year.*So just about two thirds a yearly income to cover the cost of one stent.

I've made guns, bombs, bomb disposal robots, auto parts and medical devices over the years. Costs go up because we are making more and more intricate, tighter toleranced parts out of more and more expensive materials.

That takes precision, and precision costs.

And a heart stent would be a procedure that would be covered by ANY private medical insurance policy. It is procedures like that for which we should be carrying insurance just as we carry collision insurance to repair major damage to our automobile but not replace the damaged wheel or tire or the broken tail light. We carry homeowner's insurance to cover major repairs necessary from wind, hail, lightning, fire, etc., but not to cover the worn out water heater or the busted furnace.

And if we expected insurance to cover ONLY those procedures that we cannot easily pay for out of pocket or pay off in installments, and did not expect insurance to cover the routine doctor's visit or the annual 'flu' shot or the kid's broken finger, the costs would be spread out over large blocks of population so that the premiums would be affordable for just about everybody. Evenmoreso if we applied antitrust laws so that insurance companies could not establish monopolies in certain areas and/or if we had decent tort reform to protect responsible doctors who didn't order a lot of tests and procedures that are not medically indicated just to protect themselves.

The federal government cannot provide anything as cheaply, efficiently, or effectively as the private sector can when the free market is allowed to work as intended.

 

[Vidi]

Sorry but your opinions of what healthcare used to be don't stand up in the face of the evidence. I raised a family without benefit of any government insurance or mandates (thank God) and though for most of those years we were of very modest means, we went without no medical care that any of us needed. Ever.

Just like we pay for routine auto and home maintenance, we paid for routine healthcare out of pocket. We carried a large deductible on our insurance and rarely ever met that deductible. But the insurance was there for the rare hospitalization during those years. And that insurance was affordable because doctors weren't required to run a bunch of tests that were not medically indicated and wasn't paying for shots and prescriptions and routine office visits and the occasional trip to the E.R.

Yes medical science has improved substantially over the years but that has been in spite of government meddling, not because of it. And if we get the government out of it, and let the free market work, it will become affordable again.

You were lucky. Many aren't as lucky as you.

As far as costs? Ever need a heart stent?

What the going rate for raw stainless steel?

Which machines are used to manufacture them? What the their costs, both initial purchase and running costs?

What are the non production costs? Such as clean rooms and quality assurance?

Until you can answer those questions, you cannot have any real concept of who is to blame for health care costs.

At Aurora Sinai Medical Center in Wisconsin, placement of one cardiac stent that is coated with long-release medication to prevent scar tissue from reclogging the artery carries a median hospital charge of $41,228, according estimates from the Wisconsin Hospital Association.

The average American household takes in $63,091 per year.*So just about two thirds a yearly income to cover the cost of one stent.

I've made guns, bombs, bomb disposal robots, auto parts and medical devices over the years. Costs go up because we are making more and more intricate, tighter toleranced parts out of more and more expensive materials.

That takes precision, and precision costs.

And a heart stent would be a procedure that would be covered by ANY private medical insurance policy. It is procedures like that for which we should be carrying insurance just as we carry collision insurance to repair major damage to our automobile but not replace the damaged wheel or tire or the broken tail light. We carry homeowner's insurance to cover major repairs necessary from wind, hail, lightning, fire, etc., but not to cover the worn out water heater or the busted furnace.

And if we expected insurance to cover ONLY those procedures that we cannot easily pay for out of pocket or pay off in installments, and did not expect insurance to cover the routine doctor's visit or the annual 'flu' shot or the kid's broken finger, the costs would be spread out over large blocks of population so that the premiums would be affordable for just about everybody. Evenmoreso if we applied antitrust laws so that insurance companies could not establish monopolies in certain areas and/or if we had decent tort reform to protect responsible doctors who didn't order a lot of tests and procedures that are not medically indicated just to protect themselves.

The federal government cannot provide anything as cheaply, efficiently, or effectively as the private sector can when the free market is allowed to work as intended.

And if you're working 50 hours a week and your employer doesn't offer health insurance? What then?

Don't say it doesnt happen, it happened to me from 2009-2010. Purchasing outside of the employer provided would have meant my family would have starved.

 

[koshergrl]

Then you get fucking creative.
Cripes.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Then you get fucking creative.
Cripes.

It's just that the liberal mindset has gone from "the government should offer a safety net in case something really bad happens" to "the government should prevent anything bad from ever happening." They just can't grok the idea that shit happens, and it's actually supposed to be that way.

 

[Syphon]

You CAN compare them precisely because the lack of choice and freedom are two of the main points that need to be discussed in the comparison. Saying, "We're going to have the government take over from private industry, BUT YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE TWO! No attempts at discussing which is better will be allowed!" is just another liberal attempt to impose utopia on others against their will, and silence any opposition.

you still didnt answer my question. show me a private industry that must operate under the same rules of the fed. show me a private industry that has mandatory spending, and must service all people the same exact way.
can the fed tell people under medicare that they wont serve them? can they drop people on medicare for getting sick? can they rate people based on pre-existing conditions? no. but private industry can. there is also no lack of freedom within the health care market right now. there are plenty of providers to choose from.

we can look at the USPS as another example. who provides the same exact service that the post office does? not even UPS, Fed Ex or DHL can provide the exact same service for the rate. they provide a similar service at a much higher cost of service. should UPS, FedEx and DHL provide daily delivery to every home in america of mail? if that actually happened then we could actually compare them to the USPS.

are you going to make private industry operate under the same rules as the fed now?

In fact, go sit outside the post office for a day. You will see Fed Ex and UPS dropping off packages that are then delivered by the post office. This is especially prevalent in rural areas where it's not cost effective for Fed Ex and UPS to send out trucks on a daily basis. If they had to, their costs would skyrocket and be passed along to the consumer.

Additionally, in some places, the reverse is true. FedEx or UPS will ship first class mail for USPS,. It's this symbiotic relationship between public and private that allows both to be profitable.

since when has the USPS been profitable?

still waiting on an answer as well, this is the third time youve avoided the question now

 

[koshergrl]

They were raised to believe that someone would always be there to hold their hands and provide for them, and they would never have to suffer pain, stress, poverty, sickness, or any negative thing...and if they did, it would be someone else's responsibility to *fix* it.

Hence ppl like Vidi.

He worked 50 hours a week and couldn't afford health insurance OR a payment plan?

Bullshit. He is living way beyond his means then.

 

[Foxfyre]

You were lucky. Many aren't as lucky as you.

As far as costs? Ever need a heart stent?

What the going rate for raw stainless steel?

Which machines are used to manufacture them? What the their costs, both initial purchase and running costs?

What are the non production costs? Such as clean rooms and quality assurance?

Until you can answer those questions, you cannot have any real concept of who is to blame for health care costs.






The average American household takes in $63,091 per year.*So just about two thirds a yearly income to cover the cost of one stent.

I've made guns, bombs, bomb disposal robots, auto parts and medical devices over the years. Costs go up because we are making more and more intricate, tighter toleranced parts out of more and more expensive materials.

That takes precision, and precision costs.

And a heart stent would be a procedure that would be covered by ANY private medical insurance policy. It is procedures like that for which we should be carrying insurance just as we carry collision insurance to repair major damage to our automobile but not replace the damaged wheel or tire or the broken tail light. We carry homeowner's insurance to cover major repairs necessary from wind, hail, lightning, fire, etc., but not to cover the worn out water heater or the busted furnace.

And if we expected insurance to cover ONLY those procedures that we cannot easily pay for out of pocket or pay off in installments, and did not expect insurance to cover the routine doctor's visit or the annual 'flu' shot or the kid's broken finger, the costs would be spread out over large blocks of population so that the premiums would be affordable for just about everybody. Evenmoreso if we applied antitrust laws so that insurance companies could not establish monopolies in certain areas and/or if we had decent tort reform to protect responsible doctors who didn't order a lot of tests and procedures that are not medically indicated just to protect themselves.

The federal government cannot provide anything as cheaply, efficiently, or effectively as the private sector can when the free market is allowed to work as intended.

And if you're working 50 hours a week and your employer doesn't offer health insurance? What then?

Don't say it doesnt happen, it happened to me from 2009-2010. Purchasing outside of the employer provided would have meant my family would have starved.

All the more reason to get the employer out of it so that insurance becomes affordable for all working people again. We usually got our insurance through employers too because it was somewhat cheaper that way and/or we could get better coverage.

Nevertheless, there was usually a 30 to 60-day waiting period before your coverage started on a new sign up back then and Hubby had just changed jobs so was in that waiting period when he had a gas blow out and sustained third degree burns on his left hand when lighting the furnace one night. We stuck it in ice water and headed for the emergency room where he was treated, and because he was drugged for the pain, was kept over night. These days, the cost for that plus several follow up appointments would have been in the many thousands. For us the cost was reasonable and we were able to pay it off in a few installments.

That is the difference between the free market system and one that the government has meddled in and corrupted.

 

[Vidi]

And a heart stent would be a procedure that would be covered by ANY private medical insurance policy. It is procedures like that for which we should be carrying insurance just as we carry collision insurance to repair major damage to our automobile but not replace the damaged wheel or tire or the broken tail light. We carry homeowner's insurance to cover major repairs necessary from wind, hail, lightning, fire, etc., but not to cover the worn out water heater or the busted furnace.

And if we expected insurance to cover ONLY those procedures that we cannot easily pay for out of pocket or pay off in installments, and did not expect insurance to cover the routine doctor's visit or the annual 'flu' shot or the kid's broken finger, the costs would be spread out over large blocks of population so that the premiums would be affordable for just about everybody. Evenmoreso if we applied antitrust laws so that insurance companies could not establish monopolies in certain areas and/or if we had decent tort reform to protect responsible doctors who didn't order a lot of tests and procedures that are not medically indicated just to protect themselves.

The federal government cannot provide anything as cheaply, efficiently, or effectively as the private sector can when the free market is allowed to work as intended.

And if you're working 50 hours a week and your employer doesn't offer health insurance? What then?

Don't say it doesnt happen, it happened to me from 2009-2010. Purchasing outside of the employer provided would have meant my family would have starved.

All the more reason to get the employer out of it so that insurance becomes affordable for all working people again. We usually got our insurance through employers too because it was somewhat cheaper that way and/or we could get better coverage.

Nevertheless, there was usually a 30 to 60-day waiting period before your coverage started on a new sign up back then and Hubby had just changed jobs so was in that waiting period when he had a gas blow out and sustained third degree burns on his left hand when lighting the furnace one night. We stuck it in ice water and headed for the emergency room where he was treated, and because he was drugged for the pain, was kept over night. These days, the cost for that plus several follow up appointments would have been in the many thousands. For us the cost was reasonable and we were able to pay it off in a few installments.

That is the difference between the free market system and one that the government has meddled in and corrupted.

You cant possibly make health care affordable without price controls and thats just more big government meddling.

 

[koshergrl]

"Government must help! Humans cannot stand on their own!"

 

[IndependntLogic]

It's funny. Liberals say that Conservatives don't address issues. That they dodge, change the subject use moral equivalency (e.g. Rush is fine because Look! A Liberal guy did something similar!), just sling petty insults or labels and finally, when frustrated, Cut & Run. Which Many Conservatives here definitely do.
Conservatives claim Liberals do all these things. Which many Liberals here definitely do.
Both sides have posters here that do these things.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How MANY times do I have to destroy this dogmatic driven MYTH? It has been dis-proven on numerous threads, yet you still chant the same crap, over and over and over...

Please explain why you refuse to accept facts Foxfyre?

America has the most 'private sector' health care in the world. AND the most expensive per capita than ANY nation on earth. And the most expensive 'private sector' health care in the world does not even provide the best outcomes for American citizens.

What makes you believe our federal government can do things any more efficiently and less expensively?
I challenge you to provide evidence of any federal program which operates on time and within budget.

Exactly. He can't do it, but he has the leftwing talking points memorized and has apparently made himself believe they can't be challenged.

The ONLY way ANY country can provide healthcare more cheaply than the private sector is by rationing that healthcare and/or shifting the cost to something else to make the books on the healthcare appear balanced. Before the government got involved, the U.S. healthcare system was affordable for more people. We all paid out of pocket for the routine doctor's visit, the routine vaccinations and shots, the treatment for that broken finger in the E.R. And it didn't break the bank either. Those who couldn't pay got treated anyway and got a bill in the mail that they could pay out over time if necessary. There were privately owned charity clinics and hospitals for the few truly indigent.

The day that Medicare went into effect, followed by Medicaid some years later, the costs began sharply rising and have spiraled out of control the more the government has become involved.

But arguing with liberals is frustrating because apparently none want to even think about that, much less take a close look at it. It would be way too upsetting to the leftist/liberal mantra so they just deny it without having a clue whether it is accurate or not.

Correct! I remember the days when there were no such animals as HMO's PPO's or the other alphabet group coverage.
One of my earliest employers offered a plan with 100% coverage( eye and dental included) after the first $1,000 per year. All for a whopping FIVE bucks per pay period.
Then the geniuses on Capitol Hill decided they knew what was best for all of us and with a few pen strokes loaded all kinds of nonsense onto the insurance industry.
Medicare and Medicaid regulations blew the insurance industry out of the water.
And everybody LOST.
Now unless a majority of the 9 wisepeople in that concrete building with the big white columns decide otherwise, we are going for round number two of government interference into the health insurance business. Only this time it will be far worse.
The lasting effect will be the disappearance of the entire health insurance business as we know it. All we will have left is the bureaucratic mess the democrats have created.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You can not compare the private industry and government, as private industry can choose either not to provide an individual or business with service. the government can not. Look at the VA, Medicare, SS and Medicaid. If the government chose not to pay for services the private sector would have a shit fit. Now if they could deny services such as the private sector does, they could become extremely efficient. Name a private industry that has the same responsibility of the federal government. What private industry has mandatory spending? I challenge you to prove me wrong

You CAN compare them precisely because the lack of choice and freedom are two of the main points that need to be discussed in the comparison. Saying, "We're going to have the government take over from private industry, BUT YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE TWO! No attempts at discussing which is better will be allowed!" is just another liberal attempt to impose utopia on others against their will, and silence any opposition.

you still didnt answer my question. show me a private industry that must operate under the same rules of the fed. show me a private industry that has mandatory spending, and must service all people the same exact way.
can the fed tell people under medicare that they wont serve them? can they drop people on medicare for getting sick? can they rate people based on pre-existing conditions? no. but private industry can. there is also no lack of freedom within the health care market right now. there are plenty of providers to choose from.

we can look at the USPS as another example. who provides the same exact service that the post office does? not even UPS, Fed Ex or DHL can provide the exact same service for the rate. they provide a similar service at a much higher cost of service. should UPS, FedEx and DHL provide daily delivery to every home in america of mail? if that actually happened then we could actually compare them to the USPS.

are you going to make private industry operate under the same rules as the fed now?

Hey sunshine. Once again you demonstrate your uncanny ability to miss the point with the hopes of convincing anyone that your belief in government is the correct one.
Genius, it is precisely the reason private business can operate at a profit or at least break even that those very same reasons prevent government from doing any of the above.
First , politicians have no concept of fiscal responsibility. The federal government does not go broke. It simply taxes and prints more currency.
The USPS? The Postal Service bleeds money. In keeping with your previous posts, not atypical.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's funny. Liberals say that Conservatives don't address issues. That they dodge, change the subject use moral equivalency (e.g. Rush is fine because Look! A Liberal guy did something similar!), just sling petty insults or labels and finally, when frustrated, Cut & Run. Which Many Conservatives here definitely do.
Conservatives claim Liberals do all these things. Which many Liberals here definitely do.
Both sides have posters here that do these things.

So what? Every group will have weak members. What's important is that conservatism is an intellectual philosophy that apparently is responsible for America's greatness, while liberalism is subversively based on purely destructive free lunch liberalism.

And let's not forget that independent means independent of the IQ needed to decide between freedom and government. Would you call yourself logical if you did not know up from down?

 

[Vidi]

It's funny. Liberals say that Conservatives don't address issues. That they dodge, change the subject use moral equivalency (e.g. Rush is fine because Look! A Liberal guy did something similar!), just sling petty insults or labels and finally, when frustrated, Cut & Run. Which Many Conservatives here definitely do.
Conservatives claim Liberals do all these things. Which many Liberals here definitely do.
Both sides have posters here that do these things.

So what? Every group will have weak members. What's important is that conservatism is an intellectual philosophy that apparently is responsible for America's greatness, while liberalism is subversively based on purely destructive free lunch liberalism.

And let's not forget that independent means independent of the IQ needed to decide between freedom and government. Would you call yourself logical if you did not know up from down?

Yes, because in the years that America rose out of a collapsed economy into a world superpower, it was the Conservative policies that were in place...

/sarcasm

and no I wouldnt call that logical, Id call it Republican