I think the effect of showing the definition is lost if that definition is lost when the ideology of Democrats is the exact opposite of that definition. I doubt the guy who is called racist, sexist, homophobic, and an imperialist for thinking that a Government $14 trillion in debt doesn't need to INCREASE spending is going to be convinced that liberals believe in tolerance. The facts just don't support calling Democrats this definition of liberal.
Democrats are definitely NOT Liberals... They're just slightly more socially Liberal than Republicans.
Liberalism itself isn't a political party. It's a way of thinking.
Nonetheless most Liberal politicians opt to label themselves as "Democrats" in order to get funding, or because of society's criminalizationof the word "Liberal".
I'm quite sure that I'm a liberal but I see no evidence that the Democrats have ever been anything other than slightly less illiberal than the Republicans.
ROTFLMAO! Conservatives don't care if you opt out of freedom (capitalism) and start a commune. But "liberals" would never allow subjects to opt out of socialist scams and practice free trade. Who is intolerant?
How so? People practice free trade all the time. Even in the most oppressive conditions, from concentration caps to starving desert populations, people trade what they have for what they want whenever they have something and want something. Government can't really stop tat, it only stands in the way, erects barriers, and that usually just drives it underground. Prostitution, drugs, and a thousand other things prove that every day.
What do you mean? Free market trade has always existed and will always exist. The only issue is how much of it governments drive underground by taxes and other impositions and restrictions on freedom. The great lie of "liberals" is that socialism can work, that slavery is freedom, that free trade isn't free because some people have more to trade than others. It's just class warfare propaganda. The lazy and those who don't save have less to trade. So what?
@wrjamescom There are three things free trade requires
1. Perfect competition.
2. Perfect Knowledge.
3. Perfect mobility.
These three things never have existed in any society, thus free trade has never existed.
Also how was is socialism slavery? Some forms of socialism can be called slavery but in general how is it slavery to want to be able to control what you produce?
@yellowkrux Individuals have rights of rights do not exist. Socialism, by it's very nature, enslaves all for the supposed good of the collective. In a free society, you and others ignorant of socialism's 100% failure rate are free to form a commune and opt out of the free society. But in a socialist society, they cannot allow any of the slaves to opt out and practice freedom. Start your own socialist medical scam and let only the willing sign up, for example. You know why you can't.
@wrjamescom I doubt you know what socialism is, or what civilizations have been socialist. & My criteria, is not my criteria, it was the original definition of free market.
It's really bad form to argue for a position, that you are unaware of. (very harmful to our democracy)
@yellowkrux You really should get an education, a real one, before parroting lines. Your definition is neither accurate or original, but it's parroted from crackpots who promote a marxist agenda. If my arguments do not match what you have been taught, it's because you have been taught BS. Our system, for example, is not and has never been, and hopefully will never be a democracy. We have a constitutional republic, not mob rule.
@wrjamescom Again not my definition, rather the original definition of free market capitalism & it predates socialism. We have a constitutional representative democracy. I'm going out on a limb here & guessing you don't know what the terms republic or democracy mean, yet are against the latter, as well as not knowing the definition of socialism or free market capitalism despite opposing the former & embracing the latter? Am I correct?
@yellowkrux You are still batting zero. You clearly do not understand what the words mean and are too fanatical in your religion to learn. And of course free markets existed before governments! Parliamentary systems are usually representative democracies. The USA is not. As setup, only the house of Reps was democratically elected. The other house,the senate, and the executive and judiciary were not. Today, the senate is, but still two thirds of the branches are not democratically elected.
Our system was designed specifically to avoid mob rule. In fact, at the time, only male land owners were usually allowed to vote. There was a good reason that. It is insane and destructive to a free society to allow people who do not pay taxes to have a say in how the government spends money. Eventually, you have more bums voting themselves other people's money than you have people generating wealth.
And that is why socialism is a learning disorder. It has a long and 100% failure rate because of that fatal flaw. Socialists are people who never matured past the age of 5. They still expect mommy to make others play nice and share. They still expect to be supported without having to work. They still expect mommy to make sure they aren't offended. They still expect mommy to kiss their booboos, and pay for the bandages.
@wrjamescom No they didn't, that's the thing, I told you what the term free market literally means, not the version whatever cult you joined taught you. & The chief executive is elected, congress is elected, that's 2/3. Also the Judiciary is approved & appointed by the other branches.
& Am I to take it that was a yes to not knowing all 4 of those questions?
@yellowkrux You'll take anything to mean what you want it to mean anyway. You refuse to educate yourself. You telling me something doesn't make it true. The senate was appointed for more of the nation's history, And still represents states, not people, Alaska and California have the same number of votes. And the executive is not democratically elected. Do some reading and learn. Stop making a fool of yourself displaying such ignorance.
@yellowkrux A free market is simply when people are allowed to trade what they have for what they want, I already explained that. Af for the elections, yes, every 4 years the electoral college meets in December to elect the president. Look it up. And the senate is hardly democratic. Two senators from Wyoming have the same votes as the two from California representing over 68 times as many people. We are NOT a democracy! And that's good.
@yellowkrux Yes I did, read the messages. And yes, drugs and prostitution and monopolies can exist in a free market, but one can have a free market for for some things and not others. Obviously a slave is not free to trade, so I don't know where you get that. However where slavery exists, there can be free trade among the owners. "The market" is not a single entity. Continued...
As for democracy, the people do not elect the president. If you voted against the winner in your state, you get no representation when the electoral college meets for the real election. And if you think it's democratic for one person to have 63 times the voting power of another, then you should have no problem with the pigs final version of the rule "... but some are more equal than others". Our system was designed to prevent mob rule, aka "democracy".
It's also why the oath of office for al those government jobs like the president and congress and USSC all require swearing their allegiance not to the people or the nation but to the constitution. Our officials have no obligation to serve the people. They are obligated to serve the constitution without regard to the people, no matter what the wishes of the mob are at any time. It is a constitutional republic.
@wrjamescom Don't monopolies contradict your definition of free market, after all if another wants to trade in the ame product as a monopoly they'll be shoved out. & How is slavery not necessary in your free market under the definition you provided. & It's pretty obvious our system has mob rule & yes if you voted against the winner of your state you get representation, they guy who won, sorry but that's how democratic republics work.THe actual definition of free market is a lot better than yours
A government monopoly, be it the post office or what AT&T had, do violate the free market. But if the only think that keeps anyone else from entering the market is their lack of enough money or skills or resources, then there is no violation. A 50 lb dwarf is free to become a professional sumo wrestler. But that doesn't mean he can do it. Slavery violates a free market since the slave is not allowed to trade what he has for what he wants with another willing trader.
As for "democratic republic", it's a silly term. We do not elect the president, but the electors. The states elected the president, and the states are represented in the senate. The people are only represented in the House. All are sworn to the Constitution, not to the people. In any form of democracy, the people either vote directly, or representatives vote in their place. That is NOT what we have, and I wouldn't want it.
@wrjamescom So a monopoly falls under your definition of free market capitalism? & How do you explain the contradiction on slavery, after all free market capitalism is" people being able to trade what ever they want", & don't monopolies prevent people from trading in such a manner? For that matter what about patented products?
I'll stick with the actual definition of free market.
& Again we are a democratic republic, the constitution set us up as such & elect the senate too. Study civics.
@yellowkrux Free market means what it means without ref=gard to the lines you've learned from crackpots. A monopoly only exists out of a free market when it is forced, when no one is allowed to compete, as in the post office example. Patents are to respect property rights, enabling a free market. And you should take your own advice and learn before attempting to teach. This is not a democracy no matter what you were taught to parrot.
@yellowkrux Just like you think you know what free market means, you also think you know what democracy means, and my political affiliation. You are still batting zero parroting your lines. I'll leave the usual BS to you republicrat parrots. It's actually hilarious when you parrots spout off your lines with no clue what you are talking about. Funnier still that you think your crackpot socialist scamming face is different from the other face of the two faced republicrat party.
@wrjamescom Yes, I'm going to stick with the actual definition of Free Market, & I'm going to stick with knowing the actual form our government takes.
And your criteria is total nonsense. All you need to practice free trade is a willingness to trade and another party also willing to trade. What crackpot leftist rag did you learn to parrot those line from anyway? If it was a book, you should demand a refund.
Don't wory all my liberal brothers and sisters. All of this blovating and chest beating you hear from many on the radical right is because since Obama has been elected over 50% of the country approves of his openly progressive agenda. These people are not the majority.
Say who did the poll as many organizations who do these are biased. Here's something for you, 57% of people surveyed by non partisan organization rasmussen support health insurance form with a public option. sorry, people might not say they are liberal but conservative ideals are not the majority thought. Maybe if you stop shooting up unitarian churches more people might be willing to listen to you.
Google "Liberal/Conservative Poll" and it will show you where I got my numbers. It's common knowledge. It is true that 57% polled favored a Public Option but a vast majority are opposed to a lone, gov't run healthcare system. People want choice.
This is hilarious. A liberal embraces change and reform??? Liberals are against a flat tax. Do not want to open up health care to free market forces to bring prices down. Not interested in reforming education by allowing private and parochial schools to compete with public schools for federal money. Not interested in privitization of social security. Liberals are not liberal at all. They want people to be controlled and regulated by big gov't.
"They want people to be controlled and regulated by big gov't."
You're just repeating everything lobbyists are pushing for without even realizing it. Where does it say in the Constitution, "Government is best when it rules the least"?.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. My point here is that the claim that "Liberals" are open minded is a farce. They are just as stubborn in their beliefs as those on the right. And that's fine. Liberals and Conservatives have different approaches to the problems we face today. I'm a pragmatist and am interested in what works. If private industry can do something better than gov't then give it a shot. To me Liberals seem to have one view. Let the gov't take it over. That's it.
And you don't think the gov't will screw you? A little naive don't you think? The big difference private as opposed to public is this. With gov't, you have no alternative. No choice. A monopoly. With private, you do have a choice. You can purchase goods and services from one company over another. The well run companies who provide excellent goods and services will survive. They are accountable to their customers. Gov't is accountable to no one.Dem or Rep. I'm blue collar by the way.
The people create laws and therefore the Government can't screw us. It's "Government for the people, by the people". Remember? Gov is bad if we let it...if we sit idly by...And it only becomes a monopoly under socialism, we're not a socialist country. Besides, what we have now is a monopoly, how many insurance Co. right now are vying for the best price?
Do you pay taxes? Judging by your age, you probably don't. Give me a shout back someday after you've bought a house and struggle everyday trying to raise your family. Let me know how happy you are when you get the bill for your property taxes, school taxes, state and federal income tax, sales tax for fuel to heat your home and drive your car and so on. Then tell me all about how the gov't doesn't screw people.
And the medical industry is exempt from a lot of other things my friend, they are so filthy rich and have so much power that they can change laws to benefit themselves. Guess what? They don't pay taxes...that is criminal.
Look Junior, get a little more life experience under your belt before you start schooling me on the ways of the world. I'm about old enough to be your father. I've been following politics and the issues since you were stumbling around with a little binky sticking out of your mouth. And believe me, I went through that whole " I went to college, so I know everything phase" I'd love to school you some more but you're so blinded by your faith in big gov't, I'd be wasting my time with you.
I don't need a college education to say that medical care should be free for all. Why are you so opposed to the idea? Conservatives are supposed to have high morals, but where are your morals when you let Corporations get filthy rich off human suffering?
"Medical Care should be free for all?" Do you realize how idealistic and naive that is? Nothing in this world is free. Gov't healthcare WILL NOT be free. We will all pay for it in the form of taxes...ON EVERYTHING. And there will be no guarantee that you will receive treatment on time. You do realize that you do have to pay doctors and nurses to do their jobs? Do you work for free or are you above getting paid? Why don't you become a doctor and work for free.
Of course it would be in the form of taxes. That's pretty obvious. We're being brainwashed that taxes are somehow bad, if the taxes we pay now would go towards health care, it would solve this problem.
You said you wanted free healthcare for all yet you acknowledge it will cost money for all. Look, you sound like a well intentioned young man but I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. You're a dreamer. And that's fine. I was. Then I grew up.Wait til you get to be my age. Believe me, you'll hve a different outlook on life.
"Conservatives are supposed to have high morals?" I'm an agnostic for starters This is not about morality. This is about what works best. This is about lowering health care costs and delivering healthcare in a timely manner. You WILL pay for gov't healthcare.Then pray you don't get sick because you'll have to wait awhile to receive treatment. The Canadian system is breaking down and privately run clinics are popping up all over the palce because people are tired of waiting for gov't healthcare.
The Canadian system is doing just fine, you're listening to the scare tactics propagated by the opposition. Anyway, you can give other great examples of "socialized" medicine in other nations. They're doing just fine. I dare you to look into it.
Doing just fine? Why,do you live there? My son is dating a girl from Canada and she doesn't speak very highly of the Canadian system. And I have looked into into it,quite extensively. That's why I don't support socialized medicine. You've obviously been heavily indoctrinated into believing all of this bullshit so there's no way I can convince you otherwise. All I can say is this. Be careful what you wish for...you just may get it. Prepare to be disappointed. Gov't run healthcare is no panacea.
Yeah, the Canadian system is doing fine because PRIVATE clinics are opening up. Technically, they're illegal but the Canadian Gov't turns a blind eye because they need the help. YOU need to do more research son.
Scare tactics my friend. You mention waiting as something that's horrible, but I rather wait and get treatment than no treatment at all, or going bankrupt. Denmark, Spain, France et. al. have remarkable health care, I'm amazed when I talk to people what they tell me. I wish we had that. Peace!
Uhhhh...waiting can be a horrible thing if you're diagnosed with cancer. Are you for real? Look...if you don't like the healthcare here....then move...to Denmark, Spain, Canada, France et al and wait for treatment.. And they don't go bankrupt there because they don't have any money to begin with because you pay about 75% of your income in taxes. It's a zero sum gain anyway you slice it.
And you don't wait now? I met someone who went to emergency for abdominal pain, it turned out he had gall stones. Not only did he have to wait 2 months before anything was done, his insurance wouldn't pay for him to have them removed so they went for the next cheapest thing which was to remove his whole gall bladder. And he was lucky, some people will just be given painkillers and/or denied care altogether.
You make absolutely no sense at all. First you say that healthcare should be free for all but you acknowledge that it will cost all of us in the form of taxes. Then you say that waiting for healthcare isn't such a horrible thing then you tell me this story. You're constantly contradicting yourself. There are flaws in in private health insurance and there will be and are flaws in gov't healthcare. There are ways to bring down costs for all. All i'm saying is keep your mind open to all options.
It's free because if you're in school you don't pay and you're covered, it's free because if you lose your job you're covered, it's free if you're a homeless bum. It's free if your underage and don't work. How is this not free? The private insurance model is a selfish one, the public is altruistic. You end up helping others and yourself. But you don't want to help others.
IT'S NOT FREE BECAUSE YOU PAY TAXES!!! You're just getting back the services you've already paid for or will pay for in the future in the form of TAXES. Even if you don't pay income tax, you pay taxes..on something. When Liberal Democrat politicians ask, "Do you want Universal Healthcare Coverage?" They don't say, "Would you like FREE Universal Healthcare Coverage?" because they can't ask you that. They are going to charge you out the nose for it whether you need healthcare coverage or not..
My basic premise is to have all people covered. No Americans without health care, and to separate medicine from profit. All else is just minor details. And if you stand in the way or don't agree, in the words of Dick Cheney, "Fuck yourself".
As long as medicine requires human labor, including the people making and selling and transporting medicine and medical equipment, your childish idea would require they work for free. How about we separate your work from profit?
@wrjamescom The only thing childish is your comprehension of "socialized" medicine. You don't know anything about it, so just shut your trap. Well you do know something about it, it's the stuff that talk radio feeds you, which is molded in a way as to make it look bad. Go read some books and then come back we can talk.
@warrkrymez It never ceases to amaze me how the more ignorant and uneducated you morons are, the more you think you know and the more you think competent experienced and educated people are clueless. You seriously need to take some of your own advice. But you need to read something other than fiction, fantasy, and a socialist propaganda. Then, after gaining some education, kid, get a job and some life experience. You might just learn how ignorant you are and start to catch up.
@wrjamescom Lets look at your quote "your childish idea would require they work for free"
LoL there are already "social" programs installed in the U.S., and all workers get their paychecks every month. It's funny how you stoop so low, to troll status, and name calling to try to back up your erroneous view. You can't do that, you back up your argument with facts.
He/She should get a better insurance company or a different plan. I have a friend who had gallstones and his insurance company covered it. Depends on what type of plan he/she had. You can get a cheap, catastrophic insurance plan, with a $5000.00 deductible ,pretty cheap. Maybe he/she had that plan. And people DO NOT get denied care in this country. Yes, they may be denied certain procedures by their insurance.And if that's the case, medicaid usually picks up the tab.
Well you see what happens with cheap insurance? You want to bring in competition to bring prices down, well that might happen, but you wouldn't want to take your wife to "Bob's C-sections" now would you? You can see first hand what would happen if you pay less. You pay less and you get treated less.
Cheap insurance plans cover catastrophic illness. They don't cover anything up to $5-$10000. Which you are expected to pay for out of pocket. If you want insurance to pay for smaller issues then you have to pay more. IT"S YOUR CHOICE. That's reality. And guess what. If you're sick in Canada and you're tired of waiting for medical care. You can go to a PRIVATE clinic...IN CANADA... and pay cash or the United States and pay cash.
If we treated car insurance like many people treat medical insurance, we'd be filing insurance claims to pay for oil changes and tires, and car wash bills. And we wouldn't care what it cost since the insurance company pays it, so and oil chance would cost $2000, new tires, $30,000, and we'd be whining about the high cost of auto insurance.
You should do a little research on gallstones. There are two ways to go about it. You can remove the stones through surgery which can cause major complications or take the easier route. Which is to remove the gallbladder ...which is what most people wind up doing. That's probably the reason the insurance company didn't cover the riskier procedure.
Do me a favor. Go check out "John Stossel: Sick in America" a six part documentary which goes into the problems with private insurance and gov't run healthcare and some possible solutions. Also check out a short documentary on the Canadian healthcare system called "Dead Meat" I'm sure you've seen "Sicko" already. I saw it and Moore makes some good points but he doesn't tell the whole story.
About John Stossel, I did see a show where he showed the number one cause of deaths in this country, not cancer, AIDS, gun related, it was from medical fuck ups. The quality of health care is abysmal and that's in regard to profit being a primary goal. We rank number 37 in the world.
And you don't think there are medical fuck ups in a gov't run system? C'mon..use your noggin. That 37th ranking in the world is a bit dubious. It's from the year 2000 and since then the WHO has stopped ranking countries becasue of the complexity of the issue. Originally, they put the USA there because we don't have socailized medicine. The WHO is a socialist institution and do not approve of our private system. So their claim is a bit biased.
You are entirely correct. The WHO and the entire UN is nothing but a scam org dedicated only to transferring wealth from free people to dictators. But the figures (even if they were correct) placing the USA anywhere but the top, assume populations, not individuals, get medical treatment. That biases the silly nonsensical list toward making socialist slave states look better than free nations. Of course, that is their intention anyway.
Do you know what's in the latest healthcare legislation? The Democrat Baucus Bill? The gov't is going to mandate that people like you purchase healthcare insurance...even if you don't want it or need it at this time. If you don't purchase a plan, you will be fined $2000.00. If you don't pay the fine, you will be subjected to prison time. There's the FREE healthcare your party's been feverishly working on.
Do you know that Health Insurers are exempt from anti-trust laws? Major League baseball is the only other business that shares this benefit.. If the gov't would get rid of this anti-trust exemption for health insurers, companies could compete across state lines. Instead of choosing between two health insurers in your state, you could choose amongst hundreds of insurers which gives you more choice and would bring costs down. Ask your reps..dem or repub. why they don't get rid of this exemption.
What a joke!! Tolerant? You say Tolerant?? Modern day liberals have absolutely zero tolerance for anyone who opposes their views. F-YOU!!! Go see a head shrink!
Yeah I know I saw a liberals show up with loaded guns when bush jr. spoke in public. You really do a disservice to your viewpoint with this kind of juvenile rhetoric.
The old ways of government and society have to be dissolved for any real progress to be made. As far as I'm concerned, political parties, governments, corporations, etc. are nothing more than cults in which it's members are brainwashed to further the cause of it's leaders. And what cause is that? Money...
Wow you must be the first one in the world to figure this out. Good luck just dissolving the groups that have all the power, i'm sure if you ask nicely they'll just quit their plan.
They've been around for centuries and survived the fall of empires, how exactly do you think they are going to die off on their own. When 40% of the nations wealth is in the top 1% of people. All the while the rest of society is falling apart. Like the kid said, social darwinism, they mastered it for centuries while the rest of us have been sitting on our ass, and now they're in complete control.
Well I've never seen an intelligent liberal, or for that matter a liberal who can think for themselves. Most of societies brightest minds toted the liberal flag because in many fields from psychiatry to film making, they wont hire conservatives.
Progressive, hmmm, progressing into what? A utopia of single mothers and criminals, all completely dependent on the government.
Well we're not burning people at the stake, but at least we support what leads to success instead of failure (moral behavior, hard work, personal responsibility).
social darwinism is an element of nature, people will either succeed or fail based on their god given talents and motivation. I'm sure your Marxist ideals would have a homeless person getting as much as a doctor, sorry if I dont agree with that.
People fail because there is no incentive for them to succeed, after all they can get just as much money living off welfare. So yea I say fuck them.
In a true communist society, everyone would be on the same level. No matter how hard you worked you would be on the same level. Sounds like a society full of burger flippers, since there no incentive to succeed. Glad to see you libs are finally openly supporting communism/ socialism. In the countries that claim to be communist there are still the rich and the poor, same in every society from fascism to socialism.
Socialism is a little more open here in Europe. Unlike you conservatives who are stuck in the 1950's.
That's why there has never been a communist society, it has never followed any ideas of marx.
Incentive to succeed has nothing to do with money in a communist society. You work for your fruit, but the satisfaction of doing your desire in life is what fuels it.
Very idealistic, but the fact of the matter is it doesn't work. Stuck in the 50's? Well since that was the height of prosperity, i'll take that as a compliment.
"satisfaction of doing your desire" you're dreaming kid. Id love to be an astronaut or the president, but that just isn't in the cards, so what job will I end up getting? Do you really believe everyone will find their ideal job and live in a utopia. You need to grow up.
"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers. "
This is what a communist society tries to reverse. Follow your heart, not what gets you enough money to get by.
A communist society cannot compete with a capitalist, it will be surrounded, and strangled just as the Soviet Union was. Ideals dont mean prosperity. Some people will work their ass off, others will sit on their ass and wait to be taken care of, that is the way of the world.
"follow your heart" I'm guessing you are taking liberal studies or some other nonsense.
The soviet union was not communist, not even Socialist.
Communism is not a competition, its a system for one country to act as a commune. It isn't like you people of the free market where it's all about one upping the other person. It's a brutal and unnecessary system.
Haha, Liberal studies is not of the political position.
So you still live in your world of ideals and make believe where everyone does for the sake of doing, without any ambition. Sorry to say you don't understand humans at all, if you think that is possible.
People are competitive by nature, and that competitiveness which has been allowed to thrive in the US, is more prosperous than any other system.
Brutal, yet, but it is human nature, to deny that is to deny reality.
Communism is not a magical pill that makes everyone love each other, but when people realize that others are as dependent on each other, when others are taught what tolerance and respect is at a younger age in the education, and when pointless country wide bickering seizes, it all falls into place.
Freedom and individual liberties is the key aspect to communism.
I'm not saying that if you declare communism this will all happen, i'm saying this will never happen so communism can never exist.
Tolerance and respect, all well and good but as idealistic as the rest of your posts. Let me teach my kid that all people are inherently good and appearance is not an issue and see how long that kid lives.
So what about those that want more, do you take away their liberties for the greater good?
Sorry to say bro, but you just proved your ignorance by pulling out the typical liberal "trump card" (fascist)
You teach you kid the way the world is, not the way you wish it was. Yea that kid leaves the suburbs he's probably gonna get killed.
The generalizations mostly ring true in this instance.
Conservatives believe in promoting good successful choices, sorry to say but you give one benefits, those will have to be taken away from somebody else.
Join reality is actually a liberal tactic, lol. Regarding promoting abstinence or other terrible terrible conservative ideals.
You seem to be confusing conservatives with capitalists. The love of money is the root of evil, or bad if you refuse to use the term evil. Money is merely the means to support yourself and your family, nothing else.
Um, sorry to disappoint you, but slavery was your deal. Republicans freed the slaves, or don't you read history. You guys wanted the cheap labor and were afraid freed slaves would take over your jobs, so you kept them as property for your own personal gain. Oh, yes liberal. Don't go trying to rewrite history. And the second worst period of racial relations, the jim crow south, that was yours too. A handful of KKK members who call themselves conservative won't wipe away your shame.
What an unintelligent statement. No sense whatsoever. I get so tired of ridiculous comments on this site with no supportive argument whatsoever. I'd like you to be different. It doesn't have to parallel my views to earn my respect, just have it make sense for god's sake.
just b/c someone calls themselves something doesn't mean they are. I find liberals to be most intolerant of other people if they fall into groups that they don't deem worthy or good.
Frankly, I'm for the party that puts a leash back on the oil barons, and the Wall Street speculators (white collar thieves). After all the death, deceit, and financial rape that we've been through with this administration, if you ain't Liberal these days, you're either blind, crazy, or against the re-birth of American values.
Might I point out that Hitler was voted into power. He favored proposals for "reform". I personaly think we should take historians and origional documents to interpret what the laws actualy were trying to say, as opposed to twisting and bending them to fit current contiversial "liberal" changes.
"Liberal" and "conservative" have been defined, and redefined, so many times, that, I don't think anybody knows what they're talking about anymore, when they lob grenades at "the other side." Labels on cans of green beans are more on-the-mark, than how people see each other. How sad. Label the hell out of each other. Whatever makes you feel superior to your fellow American. Maybe that's why we're not a leader anymore. God bless America, but, screw the Americans who don't agree with me??? Wow.
You seem to have the idea right Daniel, I know it happens on both sides, but it seems like a modern day conservative trashes a modern day liberal just because they don't agree with their policies. Pointless, it seems like it is all about moneybags and superiority now.
liberalism is not the opposite of socialism, but the opposite of autoritarism and conservative positions. i'm italian and in italy is liberal who doesn't want the intervention of the Church in the politics or ethics problems. also in itay who is for the free market is not called "liberale", but he's called "liberista". so you can be at the same time liberal and socialist...
In the UK Liberal means more... "everyones equal and everyone get's equal opertunities" while socialism aims more in helping the needy and leaving those who can help themselves to themselves... while taxing them, naturally
I'm a supporter of both. There both miles off from being conservative
TOO BAD PEOPLE WHO CALL THEM SELF LIBERAL THESE DAYS ARE REALLY JUST USING THAT AS THEIR TITLE THE PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES LIBERAL ARE REALLY SOCIALISTS jfk WAS A LIBERAL OBAMA AND hILLARY ARE SOCIALISTS
Do I "Favor proposals for reform?" Certainly, if it helps the country. Am I "Open to new ideas?" Sure, if it helps the country.
Yet I look at the sister commercial for "conservatives." Am I "Resistant to change?" Yep, when the change doesn't help the country.
So, based on the Democrats' definitions, every sane person in the nation is neither a liberal nor conservative; we always vote for what we think is right.
I think the effect of showing the definition is lost if that definition is lost when the ideology of Democrats is the exact opposite of that definition. I doubt the guy who is called racist, sexist, homophobic, and an imperialist for thinking that a Government $14 trillion in debt doesn't need to INCREASE spending is going to be convinced that liberals believe in tolerance. The facts just don't support calling Democrats this definition of liberal.
sgtkpf 2 weeks ago
Hahahaha. Yeah. no.
Democrats are definitely NOT Liberals... They're just slightly more socially Liberal than Republicans.
Liberalism itself isn't a political party. It's a way of thinking.
Nonetheless most Liberal politicians opt to label themselves as "Democrats" in order to get funding, or because of society's criminalizationof the word "Liberal".
meisema666 4 months ago
I'm quite sure that I'm a liberal but I see no evidence that the Democrats have ever been anything other than slightly less illiberal than the Republicans.
GeorgeP1066 9 months ago
“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” ~ Greek proverb
We must cease to be selfish and we then will undersatand that we are all one. Where there is no vision, the people perish. - Proverbs 29:18
Conservatives need to see beyond today.
1macboo 1 year ago
That would be nice if liberals were actually any of those things.
gruvboy 1 year ago
ROTFLMAO! Conservatives don't care if you opt out of freedom (capitalism) and start a commune. But "liberals" would never allow subjects to opt out of socialist scams and practice free trade. Who is intolerant?
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom Id love to see anyone practice free trade, considering it's impossible to do so.
yellowkrux 1 year ago
@yellowkrux
How so? People practice free trade all the time. Even in the most oppressive conditions, from concentration caps to starving desert populations, people trade what they have for what they want whenever they have something and want something. Government can't really stop tat, it only stands in the way, erects barriers, and that usually just drives it underground. Prostitution, drugs, and a thousand other things prove that every day.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom Sorry I thought you meant free market trade. Which a free market has never existed.
yellowkrux 1 year ago
@yellowkrux
What do you mean? Free market trade has always existed and will always exist. The only issue is how much of it governments drive underground by taxes and other impositions and restrictions on freedom. The great lie of "liberals" is that socialism can work, that slavery is freedom, that free trade isn't free because some people have more to trade than others. It's just class warfare propaganda. The lazy and those who don't save have less to trade. So what?
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom There are three things free trade requires
1. Perfect competition.
2. Perfect Knowledge.
3. Perfect mobility.
These three things never have existed in any society, thus free trade has never existed.
Also how was is socialism slavery? Some forms of socialism can be called slavery but in general how is it slavery to want to be able to control what you produce?
yellowkrux 1 year ago
@yellowkrux Individuals have rights of rights do not exist. Socialism, by it's very nature, enslaves all for the supposed good of the collective. In a free society, you and others ignorant of socialism's 100% failure rate are free to form a commune and opt out of the free society. But in a socialist society, they cannot allow any of the slaves to opt out and practice freedom. Start your own socialist medical scam and let only the willing sign up, for example. You know why you can't.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom I doubt you know what socialism is, or what civilizations have been socialist. & My criteria, is not my criteria, it was the original definition of free market.
It's really bad form to argue for a position, that you are unaware of. (very harmful to our democracy)
yellowkrux 1 year ago
@yellowkrux You really should get an education, a real one, before parroting lines. Your definition is neither accurate or original, but it's parroted from crackpots who promote a marxist agenda. If my arguments do not match what you have been taught, it's because you have been taught BS. Our system, for example, is not and has never been, and hopefully will never be a democracy. We have a constitutional republic, not mob rule.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom Again not my definition, rather the original definition of free market capitalism & it predates socialism. We have a constitutional representative democracy. I'm going out on a limb here & guessing you don't know what the terms republic or democracy mean, yet are against the latter, as well as not knowing the definition of socialism or free market capitalism despite opposing the former & embracing the latter? Am I correct?
yellowkrux 1 year ago
@yellowkrux You are still batting zero. You clearly do not understand what the words mean and are too fanatical in your religion to learn. And of course free markets existed before governments! Parliamentary systems are usually representative democracies. The USA is not. As setup, only the house of Reps was democratically elected. The other house,the senate, and the executive and judiciary were not. Today, the senate is, but still two thirds of the branches are not democratically elected.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Our system was designed specifically to avoid mob rule. In fact, at the time, only male land owners were usually allowed to vote. There was a good reason that. It is insane and destructive to a free society to allow people who do not pay taxes to have a say in how the government spends money. Eventually, you have more bums voting themselves other people's money than you have people generating wealth.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
And that is why socialism is a learning disorder. It has a long and 100% failure rate because of that fatal flaw. Socialists are people who never matured past the age of 5. They still expect mommy to make others play nice and share. They still expect to be supported without having to work. They still expect mommy to make sure they aren't offended. They still expect mommy to kiss their booboos, and pay for the bandages.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom No they didn't, that's the thing, I told you what the term free market literally means, not the version whatever cult you joined taught you. & The chief executive is elected, congress is elected, that's 2/3. Also the Judiciary is approved & appointed by the other branches.
& Am I to take it that was a yes to not knowing all 4 of those questions?
yellowkrux 1 year ago
@yellowkrux You'll take anything to mean what you want it to mean anyway. You refuse to educate yourself. You telling me something doesn't make it true. The senate was appointed for more of the nation's history, And still represents states, not people, Alaska and California have the same number of votes. And the executive is not democratically elected. Do some reading and learn. Stop making a fool of yourself displaying such ignorance.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom Fine tell me what you mean by free market then?
Because if it doesn't require those three traits what does it require.
& The chief executive not elected? Funny There is an election every 4 years were people vote for the chief executive.
The senate again is elected (today). As is congress, the only branch that isn't elected i the Judicial.
yellowkrux 1 year ago
@yellowkrux A free market is simply when people are allowed to trade what they have for what they want, I already explained that. Af for the elections, yes, every 4 years the electoral college meets in December to elect the president. Look it up. And the senate is hardly democratic. Two senators from Wyoming have the same votes as the two from California representing over 68 times as many people. We are NOT a democracy! And that's good.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom No you didn't explain that.
& Under that definition of free market slavery must be allowed allowed, as mustdrugs, prostitution, monopolies, etc.. to be a free market.
Also the electoral college is mandated in all but Utah to vote for the popular vote of their state.
& Again senators are elected.
yellowkrux 1 year ago
@yellowkrux Yes I did, read the messages. And yes, drugs and prostitution and monopolies can exist in a free market, but one can have a free market for for some things and not others. Obviously a slave is not free to trade, so I don't know where you get that. However where slavery exists, there can be free trade among the owners. "The market" is not a single entity. Continued...
wrjamescom 1 year ago
As for democracy, the people do not elect the president. If you voted against the winner in your state, you get no representation when the electoral college meets for the real election. And if you think it's democratic for one person to have 63 times the voting power of another, then you should have no problem with the pigs final version of the rule "... but some are more equal than others". Our system was designed to prevent mob rule, aka "democracy".
wrjamescom 1 year ago
It's also why the oath of office for al those government jobs like the president and congress and USSC all require swearing their allegiance not to the people or the nation but to the constitution. Our officials have no obligation to serve the people. They are obligated to serve the constitution without regard to the people, no matter what the wishes of the mob are at any time. It is a constitutional republic.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom Don't monopolies contradict your definition of free market, after all if another wants to trade in the ame product as a monopoly they'll be shoved out. & How is slavery not necessary in your free market under the definition you provided. & It's pretty obvious our system has mob rule & yes if you voted against the winner of your state you get representation, they guy who won, sorry but that's how democratic republics work.THe actual definition of free market is a lot better than yours
yellowkrux 1 year ago
@yellowkrux
A government monopoly, be it the post office or what AT&T had, do violate the free market. But if the only think that keeps anyone else from entering the market is their lack of enough money or skills or resources, then there is no violation. A 50 lb dwarf is free to become a professional sumo wrestler. But that doesn't mean he can do it. Slavery violates a free market since the slave is not allowed to trade what he has for what he wants with another willing trader.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
As for "democratic republic", it's a silly term. We do not elect the president, but the electors. The states elected the president, and the states are represented in the senate. The people are only represented in the House. All are sworn to the Constitution, not to the people. In any form of democracy, the people either vote directly, or representatives vote in their place. That is NOT what we have, and I wouldn't want it.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom So a monopoly falls under your definition of free market capitalism? & How do you explain the contradiction on slavery, after all free market capitalism is" people being able to trade what ever they want", & don't monopolies prevent people from trading in such a manner? For that matter what about patented products?
I'll stick with the actual definition of free market.
& Again we are a democratic republic, the constitution set us up as such & elect the senate too. Study civics.
yellowkrux 1 year ago
@yellowkrux Free market means what it means without ref=gard to the lines you've learned from crackpots. A monopoly only exists out of a free market when it is forced, when no one is allowed to compete, as in the post office example. Patents are to respect property rights, enabling a free market. And you should take your own advice and learn before attempting to teach. This is not a democracy no matter what you were taught to parrot.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom
Again I'll stick with the actual definition of free market. Especially because you just changed yours.
& No if you followed your definitions of free market,monopolies would develop.
& Sorry but we do elect or representatives, they aren't chosen by any other means, that makes us a democratic republic.
So I think I'm just going to stick to reality, you have fun in republican narnia.
yellowkrux 1 year ago
@yellowkrux Just like you think you know what free market means, you also think you know what democracy means, and my political affiliation. You are still batting zero parroting your lines. I'll leave the usual BS to you republicrat parrots. It's actually hilarious when you parrots spout off your lines with no clue what you are talking about. Funnier still that you think your crackpot socialist scamming face is different from the other face of the two faced republicrat party.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom Yes, I'm going to stick with the actual definition of Free Market, & I'm going to stick with knowing the actual form our government takes.
Have fun in republican narnia.
yellowkrux 1 year ago
@yellowkrux You stick to your parroted lines all you want. The rest of the world knows the actual meaning of the words and are laughing at you.
I wont evan ask what a republican narnia is supposed to be. Presumably it's something to do do with you republicrats and your fantasies.
Have fun in your cage, Polly.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@yellowkrux
And your criteria is total nonsense. All you need to practice free trade is a willingness to trade and another party also willing to trade. What crackpot leftist rag did you learn to parrot those line from anyway? If it was a book, you should demand a refund.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Don't wory all my liberal brothers and sisters. All of this blovating and chest beating you hear from many on the radical right is because since Obama has been elected over 50% of the country approves of his openly progressive agenda. These people are not the majority.
mwells219 2 years ago
Poll: 40% of the population consider themselves to be conservative. 20% Liberal. 40% Moderate. Who's in the minority? Hmmmm....
neobootsonious 2 years ago
Say who did the poll as many organizations who do these are biased. Here's something for you, 57% of people surveyed by non partisan organization rasmussen support health insurance form with a public option. sorry, people might not say they are liberal but conservative ideals are not the majority thought. Maybe if you stop shooting up unitarian churches more people might be willing to listen to you.
mwells219 2 years ago
Google "Liberal/Conservative Poll" and it will show you where I got my numbers. It's common knowledge. It is true that 57% polled favored a Public Option but a vast majority are opposed to a lone, gov't run healthcare system. People want choice.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
This is hilarious. A liberal embraces change and reform??? Liberals are against a flat tax. Do not want to open up health care to free market forces to bring prices down. Not interested in reforming education by allowing private and parochial schools to compete with public schools for federal money. Not interested in privitization of social security. Liberals are not liberal at all. They want people to be controlled and regulated by big gov't.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
"They want people to be controlled and regulated by big gov't."
You're just repeating everything lobbyists are pushing for without even realizing it. Where does it say in the Constitution, "Government is best when it rules the least"?.
warrkrymez 2 years ago
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. My point here is that the claim that "Liberals" are open minded is a farce. They are just as stubborn in their beliefs as those on the right. And that's fine. Liberals and Conservatives have different approaches to the problems we face today. I'm a pragmatist and am interested in what works. If private industry can do something better than gov't then give it a shot. To me Liberals seem to have one view. Let the gov't take it over. That's it.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
We let Government take it over like it was before so that the people don't get screwed.
Why do you defend the Insurance companies anyway? Are you the CEO of a pharmaceutical company? I really can't see what's in it for you.
warrkrymez 2 years ago
And you don't think the gov't will screw you? A little naive don't you think? The big difference private as opposed to public is this. With gov't, you have no alternative. No choice. A monopoly. With private, you do have a choice. You can purchase goods and services from one company over another. The well run companies who provide excellent goods and services will survive. They are accountable to their customers. Gov't is accountable to no one.Dem or Rep. I'm blue collar by the way.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
The people create laws and therefore the Government can't screw us. It's "Government for the people, by the people". Remember? Gov is bad if we let it...if we sit idly by...And it only becomes a monopoly under socialism, we're not a socialist country. Besides, what we have now is a monopoly, how many insurance Co. right now are vying for the best price?
warrkrymez 2 years ago
Do you pay taxes? Judging by your age, you probably don't. Give me a shout back someday after you've bought a house and struggle everyday trying to raise your family. Let me know how happy you are when you get the bill for your property taxes, school taxes, state and federal income tax, sales tax for fuel to heat your home and drive your car and so on. Then tell me all about how the gov't doesn't screw people.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
You bitch about taxes? Well I just hope you or someone in your family doesn't ever get sick, you'll go bankrupt. It's that simple.
warrkrymez 2 years ago
And the medical industry is exempt from a lot of other things my friend, they are so filthy rich and have so much power that they can change laws to benefit themselves. Guess what? They don't pay taxes...that is criminal.
warrkrymez 2 years ago
Look Junior, get a little more life experience under your belt before you start schooling me on the ways of the world. I'm about old enough to be your father. I've been following politics and the issues since you were stumbling around with a little binky sticking out of your mouth. And believe me, I went through that whole " I went to college, so I know everything phase" I'd love to school you some more but you're so blinded by your faith in big gov't, I'd be wasting my time with you.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
I don't need a college education to say that medical care should be free for all. Why are you so opposed to the idea? Conservatives are supposed to have high morals, but where are your morals when you let Corporations get filthy rich off human suffering?
warrkrymez 2 years ago
"Medical Care should be free for all?" Do you realize how idealistic and naive that is? Nothing in this world is free. Gov't healthcare WILL NOT be free. We will all pay for it in the form of taxes...ON EVERYTHING. And there will be no guarantee that you will receive treatment on time. You do realize that you do have to pay doctors and nurses to do their jobs? Do you work for free or are you above getting paid? Why don't you become a doctor and work for free.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
Of course it would be in the form of taxes. That's pretty obvious. We're being brainwashed that taxes are somehow bad, if the taxes we pay now would go towards health care, it would solve this problem.
warrkrymez 2 years ago
You said you wanted free healthcare for all yet you acknowledge it will cost money for all. Look, you sound like a well intentioned young man but I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. You're a dreamer. And that's fine. I was. Then I grew up.Wait til you get to be my age. Believe me, you'll hve a different outlook on life.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
"Conservatives are supposed to have high morals?" I'm an agnostic for starters This is not about morality. This is about what works best. This is about lowering health care costs and delivering healthcare in a timely manner. You WILL pay for gov't healthcare.Then pray you don't get sick because you'll have to wait awhile to receive treatment. The Canadian system is breaking down and privately run clinics are popping up all over the palce because people are tired of waiting for gov't healthcare.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
The Canadian system is doing just fine, you're listening to the scare tactics propagated by the opposition. Anyway, you can give other great examples of "socialized" medicine in other nations. They're doing just fine. I dare you to look into it.
warrkrymez 2 years ago
Doing just fine? Why,do you live there? My son is dating a girl from Canada and she doesn't speak very highly of the Canadian system. And I have looked into into it,quite extensively. That's why I don't support socialized medicine. You've obviously been heavily indoctrinated into believing all of this bullshit so there's no way I can convince you otherwise. All I can say is this. Be careful what you wish for...you just may get it. Prepare to be disappointed. Gov't run healthcare is no panacea.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
Yeah, the Canadian system is doing fine because PRIVATE clinics are opening up. Technically, they're illegal but the Canadian Gov't turns a blind eye because they need the help. YOU need to do more research son.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
Scare tactics my friend. You mention waiting as something that's horrible, but I rather wait and get treatment than no treatment at all, or going bankrupt. Denmark, Spain, France et. al. have remarkable health care, I'm amazed when I talk to people what they tell me. I wish we had that. Peace!
warrkrymez 2 years ago
Uhhhh...waiting can be a horrible thing if you're diagnosed with cancer. Are you for real? Look...if you don't like the healthcare here....then move...to Denmark, Spain, Canada, France et al and wait for treatment.. And they don't go bankrupt there because they don't have any money to begin with because you pay about 75% of your income in taxes. It's a zero sum gain anyway you slice it.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
And you don't wait now? I met someone who went to emergency for abdominal pain, it turned out he had gall stones. Not only did he have to wait 2 months before anything was done, his insurance wouldn't pay for him to have them removed so they went for the next cheapest thing which was to remove his whole gall bladder. And he was lucky, some people will just be given painkillers and/or denied care altogether.
warrkrymez 2 years ago
You make absolutely no sense at all. First you say that healthcare should be free for all but you acknowledge that it will cost all of us in the form of taxes. Then you say that waiting for healthcare isn't such a horrible thing then you tell me this story. You're constantly contradicting yourself. There are flaws in in private health insurance and there will be and are flaws in gov't healthcare. There are ways to bring down costs for all. All i'm saying is keep your mind open to all options.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
It's free because if you're in school you don't pay and you're covered, it's free because if you lose your job you're covered, it's free if you're a homeless bum. It's free if your underage and don't work. How is this not free? The private insurance model is a selfish one, the public is altruistic. You end up helping others and yourself. But you don't want to help others.
warrkrymez 2 years ago
IT'S NOT FREE BECAUSE YOU PAY TAXES!!! You're just getting back the services you've already paid for or will pay for in the future in the form of TAXES. Even if you don't pay income tax, you pay taxes..on something. When Liberal Democrat politicians ask, "Do you want Universal Healthcare Coverage?" They don't say, "Would you like FREE Universal Healthcare Coverage?" because they can't ask you that. They are going to charge you out the nose for it whether you need healthcare coverage or not..
neobootsonious 2 years ago
You made it seem like it was horrible to wait, and waiting is done here too.
There are more flaws in private health insurance. You've named waiting, I can keep going on how bad our medical industry is.
warrkrymez 2 years ago
My basic premise is to have all people covered. No Americans without health care, and to separate medicine from profit. All else is just minor details. And if you stand in the way or don't agree, in the words of Dick Cheney, "Fuck yourself".
warrkrymez 2 years ago
@warrkrymez
As long as medicine requires human labor, including the people making and selling and transporting medicine and medical equipment, your childish idea would require they work for free. How about we separate your work from profit?
wrjamescom 1 year ago
@wrjamescom The only thing childish is your comprehension of "socialized" medicine. You don't know anything about it, so just shut your trap. Well you do know something about it, it's the stuff that talk radio feeds you, which is molded in a way as to make it look bad. Go read some books and then come back we can talk.
warrkrymez 1 year ago
@warrkrymez It never ceases to amaze me how the more ignorant and uneducated you morons are, the more you think you know and the more you think competent experienced and educated people are clueless. You seriously need to take some of your own advice. But you need to read something other than fiction, fantasy, and a socialist propaganda. Then, after gaining some education, kid, get a job and some life experience. You might just learn how ignorant you are and start to catch up.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wrjamescom Lets look at your quote "your childish idea would require they work for free"
LoL there are already "social" programs installed in the U.S., and all workers get their paychecks every month. It's funny how you stoop so low, to troll status, and name calling to try to back up your erroneous view. You can't do that, you back up your argument with facts.
warrkrymez 1 year ago
He/She should get a better insurance company or a different plan. I have a friend who had gallstones and his insurance company covered it. Depends on what type of plan he/she had. You can get a cheap, catastrophic insurance plan, with a $5000.00 deductible ,pretty cheap. Maybe he/she had that plan. And people DO NOT get denied care in this country. Yes, they may be denied certain procedures by their insurance.And if that's the case, medicaid usually picks up the tab.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
Well you see what happens with cheap insurance? You want to bring in competition to bring prices down, well that might happen, but you wouldn't want to take your wife to "Bob's C-sections" now would you? You can see first hand what would happen if you pay less. You pay less and you get treated less.
warrkrymez 2 years ago
Cheap insurance plans cover catastrophic illness. They don't cover anything up to $5-$10000. Which you are expected to pay for out of pocket. If you want insurance to pay for smaller issues then you have to pay more. IT"S YOUR CHOICE. That's reality. And guess what. If you're sick in Canada and you're tired of waiting for medical care. You can go to a PRIVATE clinic...IN CANADA... and pay cash or the United States and pay cash.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
@neobootsonious
If we treated car insurance like many people treat medical insurance, we'd be filing insurance claims to pay for oil changes and tires, and car wash bills. And we wouldn't care what it cost since the insurance company pays it, so and oil chance would cost $2000, new tires, $30,000, and we'd be whining about the high cost of auto insurance.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
You should do a little research on gallstones. There are two ways to go about it. You can remove the stones through surgery which can cause major complications or take the easier route. Which is to remove the gallbladder ...which is what most people wind up doing. That's probably the reason the insurance company didn't cover the riskier procedure.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
Do me a favor. Go check out "John Stossel: Sick in America" a six part documentary which goes into the problems with private insurance and gov't run healthcare and some possible solutions. Also check out a short documentary on the Canadian healthcare system called "Dead Meat" I'm sure you've seen "Sicko" already. I saw it and Moore makes some good points but he doesn't tell the whole story.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
About John Stossel, I did see a show where he showed the number one cause of deaths in this country, not cancer, AIDS, gun related, it was from medical fuck ups. The quality of health care is abysmal and that's in regard to profit being a primary goal. We rank number 37 in the world.
warrkrymez 2 years ago
And you don't think there are medical fuck ups in a gov't run system? C'mon..use your noggin. That 37th ranking in the world is a bit dubious. It's from the year 2000 and since then the WHO has stopped ranking countries becasue of the complexity of the issue. Originally, they put the USA there because we don't have socailized medicine. The WHO is a socialist institution and do not approve of our private system. So their claim is a bit biased.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
@neobootsonious
You are entirely correct. The WHO and the entire UN is nothing but a scam org dedicated only to transferring wealth from free people to dictators. But the figures (even if they were correct) placing the USA anywhere but the top, assume populations, not individuals, get medical treatment. That biases the silly nonsensical list toward making socialist slave states look better than free nations. Of course, that is their intention anyway.
wrjamescom 1 year ago
Do you know what's in the latest healthcare legislation? The Democrat Baucus Bill? The gov't is going to mandate that people like you purchase healthcare insurance...even if you don't want it or need it at this time. If you don't purchase a plan, you will be fined $2000.00. If you don't pay the fine, you will be subjected to prison time. There's the FREE healthcare your party's been feverishly working on.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
I don't like their health care bill either. It will never pass.
warrkrymez 2 years ago
Do you know that Health Insurers are exempt from anti-trust laws? Major League baseball is the only other business that shares this benefit.. If the gov't would get rid of this anti-trust exemption for health insurers, companies could compete across state lines. Instead of choosing between two health insurers in your state, you could choose amongst hundreds of insurers which gives you more choice and would bring costs down. Ask your reps..dem or repub. why they don't get rid of this exemption.
neobootsonious 2 years ago
Liberal - Someone so open minded that their brains have fallen out.
pray4Liberals 2 years ago
What a joke!! Tolerant? You say Tolerant?? Modern day liberals have absolutely zero tolerance for anyone who opposes their views. F-YOU!!! Go see a head shrink!
wd69em 2 years ago
Yeah I know I saw a liberals show up with loaded guns when bush jr. spoke in public. You really do a disservice to your viewpoint with this kind of juvenile rhetoric.
mwells219 2 years ago
Proud Liberal :) !
Club5K 2 years ago 2
I'm a Liberal! :)
macfarlanefan92 2 years ago 2
"Liberal: a power worshipper without power."
~George Orwell
michaelwuzthere 2 years ago
FUCK
surfmb70 2 years ago
The old ways of government and society have to be dissolved for any real progress to be made. As far as I'm concerned, political parties, governments, corporations, etc. are nothing more than cults in which it's members are brainwashed to further the cause of it's leaders. And what cause is that? Money...
RuuudeBwoyNo1 2 years ago
Wow you must be the first one in the world to figure this out. Good luck just dissolving the groups that have all the power, i'm sure if you ask nicely they'll just quit their plan.
DelalovesDarlina 2 years ago
Thanks for the sarcasm. In response to your reply, I don't have to act on anything. Old Power Structures will die off on their own...
RuuudeBwoyNo1 2 years ago
They've been around for centuries and survived the fall of empires, how exactly do you think they are going to die off on their own. When 40% of the nations wealth is in the top 1% of people. All the while the rest of society is falling apart. Like the kid said, social darwinism, they mastered it for centuries while the rest of us have been sitting on our ass, and now they're in complete control.
DelalovesDarlina 2 years ago
Definitely a liberal
LiberateBDesh 2 years ago
Great video, the vast majority of conservatives are utter morons.
GonzoTheGreat3000 2 years ago
And ALL liberals are idiots
DelalovesDarlina 2 years ago
I haven't seen too many intelligent Conservatives in my life.
and most of modern societies brightest minds were progressives.
Cheshirecat55 2 years ago
Well I've never seen an intelligent liberal, or for that matter a liberal who can think for themselves. Most of societies brightest minds toted the liberal flag because in many fields from psychiatry to film making, they wont hire conservatives.
Progressive, hmmm, progressing into what? A utopia of single mothers and criminals, all completely dependent on the government.
DelalovesDarlina 2 years ago
Open to new ideas? You've gotta be joking liberals are about as close minded as it gets.
DelalovesDarlina 2 years ago
Really? and conservatives are open to everything?
Cheshirecat55 2 years ago
Well we're not burning people at the stake, but at least we support what leads to success instead of failure (moral behavior, hard work, personal responsibility).
DelalovesDarlina 2 years ago
And if people fail, fuck them?
Social Darwinism is an element of fascism, just be mindful of that.
Cheshirecat55 2 years ago
social darwinism is an element of nature, people will either succeed or fail based on their god given talents and motivation. I'm sure your Marxist ideals would have a homeless person getting as much as a doctor, sorry if I dont agree with that.
People fail because there is no incentive for them to succeed, after all they can get just as much money living off welfare. So yea I say fuck them.
DelalovesDarlina 2 years ago
No, in a communist society, there is no capital. So a homeless guy would not be given any appropriations of society.
The doctor would. Why? Because he works for society and if he does it well, he receives more.
Cheshirecat55 2 years ago
In a true communist society, everyone would be on the same level. No matter how hard you worked you would be on the same level. Sounds like a society full of burger flippers, since there no incentive to succeed. Glad to see you libs are finally openly supporting communism/ socialism. In the countries that claim to be communist there are still the rich and the poor, same in every society from fascism to socialism.
DelalovesDarlina 2 years ago
Socialism is a little more open here in Europe. Unlike you conservatives who are stuck in the 1950's.
That's why there has never been a communist society, it has never followed any ideas of marx.
Incentive to succeed has nothing to do with money in a communist society. You work for your fruit, but the satisfaction of doing your desire in life is what fuels it.
Cheshirecat55 2 years ago
Very idealistic, but the fact of the matter is it doesn't work. Stuck in the 50's? Well since that was the height of prosperity, i'll take that as a compliment.
"satisfaction of doing your desire" you're dreaming kid. Id love to be an astronaut or the president, but that just isn't in the cards, so what job will I end up getting? Do you really believe everyone will find their ideal job and live in a utopia. You need to grow up.
DelalovesDarlina 2 years ago
Its worked before, in earlier civilizations. Its worked in communes. It can and has worked.
You call me a kid, yet I'm a year younger then you.
The 50's may have prospered, but civil and social freedoms as well as free thought was scarce.
Obviously you would need skill and training in order to achieve your goal, only thing is, money would not be an obstacle.
Not everyone will find their ideal job, but most will.
Cheshirecat55 2 years ago
"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers. "
This is what a communist society tries to reverse. Follow your heart, not what gets you enough money to get by.
Cheshirecat55 2 years ago
A communist society cannot compete with a capitalist, it will be surrounded, and strangled just as the Soviet Union was. Ideals dont mean prosperity. Some people will work their ass off, others will sit on their ass and wait to be taken care of, that is the way of the world.
"follow your heart" I'm guessing you are taking liberal studies or some other nonsense.
DelalovesDarlina 2 years ago
The soviet union was not communist, not even Socialist.
Communism is not a competition, its a system for one country to act as a commune. It isn't like you people of the free market where it's all about one upping the other person. It's a brutal and unnecessary system.
Haha, Liberal studies is not of the political position.
Cheshirecat55 2 years ago
So you still live in your world of ideals and make believe where everyone does for the sake of doing, without any ambition. Sorry to say you don't understand humans at all, if you think that is possible.
People are competitive by nature, and that competitiveness which has been allowed to thrive in the US, is more prosperous than any other system.
Brutal, yet, but it is human nature, to deny that is to deny reality.
DelalovesDarlina 2 years ago
You've completely ignored my post.
Communism is not a magical pill that makes everyone love each other, but when people realize that others are as dependent on each other, when others are taught what tolerance and respect is at a younger age in the education, and when pointless country wide bickering seizes, it all falls into place.
Freedom and individual liberties is the key aspect to communism.
Cheshirecat55 2 years ago
I'm not saying that if you declare communism this will all happen, i'm saying this will never happen so communism can never exist.
Tolerance and respect, all well and good but as idealistic as the rest of your posts. Let me teach my kid that all people are inherently good and appearance is not an issue and see how long that kid lives.
So what about those that want more, do you take away their liberties for the greater good?
DelalovesDarlina 2 years ago
I'm not a conservative, I don't believe in taking individual freedoms for the good of the country.
Wait, so all children who are brought up humanists will inevitably be killed?
What is with it with your gross generalizing?
You're border lining fascism right about now.
Cheshirecat55 2 years ago
Sorry to say bro, but you just proved your ignorance by pulling out the typical liberal "trump card" (fascist)
You teach you kid the way the world is, not the way you wish it was. Yea that kid leaves the suburbs he's probably gonna get killed.
The generalizations mostly ring true in this instance.
Conservatives believe in promoting good successful choices, sorry to say but you give one benefits, those will have to be taken away from somebody else.
Try living in the real world for a minute.
DelalovesDarlina 2 years ago
Funny, I was brought up a humanist in the worst part of Dublin.
I'm fine 23 years after.
You keep using the ad homind "Join reality" "You're deluded and don't know what you're saying"
That's a cute conservative tactic.
Conservatives don't believe in social and civil freedom, only capital. Not fairness, not justice and not peace
money
that is all.
Cheshirecat55 2 years ago
Join reality is actually a liberal tactic, lol. Regarding promoting abstinence or other terrible terrible conservative ideals.
You seem to be confusing conservatives with capitalists. The love of money is the root of evil, or bad if you refuse to use the term evil. Money is merely the means to support yourself and your family, nothing else.
DelalovesDarlina 2 years ago
liberalism under obama which is leftist is social-liberalism
its very distinct from the true liberalism which still exsists in the form of libertarianism.
So dont mixed up obama = sociolist not a true liberal whos main goal is less government reform!!!!!!!
wtfudimbo 2 years ago
It seems to me that words like Conservatism and Liberal, and a few more are being thrown around and people do not know what they mean.
Conservatism = Work for the constitution of the country (Or the princeables of whatever country your from)
Liberal = .... what the video showed
Ultima770 2 years ago
Maybe we should replace Left/Right with Authoritarian/Libertarian
Then the Paradigm might make more sense.
Geschmolzen 2 years ago
yes i am
wesleychang1463 2 years ago
I'm either neoclassicalliberal or libertarian
Scoforever 2 years ago
Republicans are Classic Liberals. Democrats are Neo-Liberal.
moretap 2 years ago
Democrats are not free from bigotry:
big.o.try |ˈbigətrē| noun
Intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
moretap 2 years ago
I'm a hardcore radical liberal...long live liberalism
UberCryxic 3 years ago
I am whatever the fuck i want to be :-)
Matt482942 3 years ago
I am what you would call a classical liberal, look it up.
btsilver6191 3 years ago
Liberal, conservative... how bout libertarian?
TheAgnosticAspie 3 years ago
No I am not
scforjoey 3 years ago
Liberal-Someone who expects the government to take care of them and feel the need to Yell their opions as loud as possible. I fucking hate them.
dragonforcesuks 3 years ago
G.O.P=God Obsesing Party
strawberEfieldz4ever 3 years ago
'The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but YouTube.'
nowaterforhim 3 years ago
REPUBLICAN and much more tolerant than the liberal left. Thank God!
God bless america and all that it stood for at one time!
vronca354 3 years ago
Oh yes slavery, extreme sexism, "witch" hangings... I sure do miss dem there days!
achefordistance 3 years ago
Um, sorry to disappoint you, but slavery was your deal. Republicans freed the slaves, or don't you read history. You guys wanted the cheap labor and were afraid freed slaves would take over your jobs, so you kept them as property for your own personal gain. Oh, yes liberal. Don't go trying to rewrite history. And the second worst period of racial relations, the jim crow south, that was yours too. A handful of KKK members who call themselves conservative won't wipe away your shame.
FreeCapital 3 years ago
I was referencing the second sentence as to all that America stood for at one time.
It's called sarcasm.
Progress is good. Most Republicans are against progression and new ideas, the things required to improve.
achefordistance 3 years ago
BTW, if you read history you should know that the Democrats of today are what the Republicans once were. There has been a dramatic shift.
achefordistance 3 years ago 5
What an unintelligent statement. No sense whatsoever. I get so tired of ridiculous comments on this site with no supportive argument whatsoever. I'd like you to be different. It doesn't have to parallel my views to earn my respect, just have it make sense for god's sake.
FreeCapital 3 years ago
I don't think you and I are talking about the same thing and I'm over it. I'm not worried about earning your "respect". I don't even know who you are.
Where the hell are your supportive arguments by the way? You've only spouted off insults, nothing of substance. Get over yourself.
I'm tired of everyone on this website calling anyone with opposing views "unintelligent".
The initial comment wasn't even directed toward you so kindly, fuck off.
achefordistance 3 years ago
Finally someone who knows history! you and me should be friends!
AngelusofDeus 3 years ago
So true.
wingatei 3 years ago
Wow, nice way of proving their ideals. HAHAHAHAHAHA
Republicans and democrats BOTH suck! Let's fight for REAL change and LIBERTY FOR ALL!
watch?v=nwDylTuH70w
shanklinmike 3 years ago
liberal and proud of it!!!
shaundraivy 3 years ago
just b/c someone calls themselves something doesn't mean they are. I find liberals to be most intolerant of other people if they fall into groups that they don't deem worthy or good.
kgwickings 3 years ago
liberals are garbage!
bob061384 3 years ago
No bigotry is garbage....liberals are fabulous!!!
shaundraivy 3 years ago 2
I'm a liberal and proud of it! :)
aewfunkyviolin 3 years ago 4
im a liberal.
kungfuwookie 3 years ago 3
Frankly, I'm for the party that puts a leash back on the oil barons, and the Wall Street speculators (white collar thieves). After all the death, deceit, and financial rape that we've been through with this administration, if you ain't Liberal these days, you're either blind, crazy, or against the re-birth of American values.
hbbeverlymusic 3 years ago 3
Dude that is such BULL
Norie92 3 years ago
couldn't agree with u more
bob061384 3 years ago
Might I point out that Hitler was voted into power. He favored proposals for "reform". I personaly think we should take historians and origional documents to interpret what the laws actualy were trying to say, as opposed to twisting and bending them to fit current contiversial "liberal" changes.
sniperjedi 3 years ago
you should look up "goodwin's law"
kungfuwookie 3 years ago
Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. wikipedia
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
kgwickings 3 years ago
"Liberal" and "conservative" have been defined, and redefined, so many times, that, I don't think anybody knows what they're talking about anymore, when they lob grenades at "the other side." Labels on cans of green beans are more on-the-mark, than how people see each other. How sad. Label the hell out of each other. Whatever makes you feel superior to your fellow American. Maybe that's why we're not a leader anymore. God bless America, but, screw the Americans who don't agree with me??? Wow.
DanielPaul56 3 years ago
You seem to have the idea right Daniel, I know it happens on both sides, but it seems like a modern day conservative trashes a modern day liberal just because they don't agree with their policies. Pointless, it seems like it is all about moneybags and superiority now.
CapeCodFarmer 3 years ago
liberalism is the opposite of socialism, but in the US they label the socialists as liberals. That does not make sense.
korredor 3 years ago
liberalism is not the opposite of socialism, but the opposite of autoritarism and conservative positions. i'm italian and in italy is liberal who doesn't want the intervention of the Church in the politics or ethics problems. also in itay who is for the free market is not called "liberale", but he's called "liberista". so you can be at the same time liberal and socialist...
tommasomanni 3 years ago
In the UK Liberal means more... "everyones equal and everyone get's equal opertunities" while socialism aims more in helping the needy and leaving those who can help themselves to themselves... while taxing them, naturally
I'm a supporter of both. There both miles off from being conservative
FlamingTide 3 years ago 2
LIBERAL WOOOOO!!!!
theatredork 3 years ago
TOO BAD PEOPLE WHO CALL THEM SELF LIBERAL THESE DAYS ARE REALLY JUST USING THAT AS THEIR TITLE THE PEOPLE WHO CALL THEMSELVES LIBERAL ARE REALLY SOCIALISTS jfk WAS A LIBERAL OBAMA AND hILLARY ARE SOCIALISTS
wpaulsen1 3 years ago
It's right next to the 'A' key if you are wondering
FlamingTide 3 years ago
anyone here ever wonder why when democrats talk about "change", they never say what they want to change to? worries me...
...o shit its socialism. sorry.
drewrock2000 3 years ago 2
Do I "Favor proposals for reform?" Certainly, if it helps the country. Am I "Open to new ideas?" Sure, if it helps the country.
Yet I look at the sister commercial for "conservatives." Am I "Resistant to change?" Yep, when the change doesn't help the country.
So, based on the Democrats' definitions, every sane person in the nation is neither a liberal nor conservative; we always vote for what we think is right.