Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you just now come to realize that passing single payer over the clearly expressed will of the voters will cost you the 2010 midterms?
They do not care, they want what they want and want it now.
They do not look forward, they love to look backwards so they can blame someone else for their mistakes.
Not long ago these same people were chanting that the majority of people had the say, now the majority of people are against this scam HC bill and against Obama and they pull their double standard and think like normal libs.
There will never be rage like we saw for Bush for 8 years ever again.
The people were raving loonies.
Did you just now come to realize that passing single payer over the clearly expressed will of the voters will cost you the 2010 midterms?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunny-Days90
They do not care, they want what they want and want it now.
They do not look forward, they love to look backwards so they can blame someone else for their mistakes.
Not long ago these same people were chanting that the majority of people had the say, now the majority of people are against this scam HC bill and against Obama and they pull their double standard and think like normal libs.
There will never be rage like we saw for Bush for 8 years ever again.
The people were raving loonies.
Let me explain the conversation, Sunny...
The momonkey comment you quoted addresses single payer health care. Libs want single payer health care. The bills being considered in the House and Senate do not provide single payer health care. True libs are opposed to these bills because they pretty much mandate the purchasing of insurance rather than provide health care. True libs are opposed to these bills and are a part of that majority who do not want any of the proposed bills passed, at least as they stand now.
At least I think you have it wrong. It's really hard to understand what you people mean when you make comments like "think like normal libs". You people are clueless about how normal libs think because you get all your information about that from Rush and he'll say anything to rile you up, keep you listening and make his big bucks.
The momonkey comment you quoted addresses single payer health care. Libs want single payer health care. The bills being considered in the House and Senate do not provide single payer health care. True libs are opposed to these bills because they pretty much mandate the purchasing of insurance rather than provide health care. True libs are opposed to these bills and are a part of that majority who do not want any of the proposed bills passed, at least as they stand now.
At least I think you have it wrong. It's really hard to understand what you people mean when you make comments like "think like normal libs". You people are clueless about how normal libs think because you get all your information about that from Rush and he'll say anything to rile you up, keep you listening and make his big bucks.
Sorry, I do not listen to Rush.
I do not that the normal lib will do whatever Obama wants them to do even if it is wrong.
Just like people who state you need to stop listening to Rush, people need to stop listening to Obama and not allow him to make mistake and mistake.
Talk about circular logic. Let's take just one example, shall we?
"Yet the liberals would use law to force things on conservatives they don't want. In contrast to what conservatives would do, which is legislate boundaries. "Good fences make good neighbors, do what you want in *your own* back yard"."
Really? You mean all those conservatives who want to put Christian prayer in the schools, outlaw gay marriage and abortion, introduce Creationism in the public schools? That, to you, is an example of conservative "tolerance"?
Please.
Point taken. But the libs are the same. They forced busing. They want to allow aborting unborn children, but oppose the death penalty for murders and 100 other contradictions of the term "tolerant" as well.
For me niether side represents me entirely, just to be clear. And in that post I was really trying to possibly explain the rage factor.
The Republicans want to push the rights of the rich over me, generally through profit on labor. The Democrats want to tax me and give it to others. In short, both sides want a piece of my proverbial rear, and niether side represents what I want. A way for me to get to the wealthy life in an honest and independant manner, as quickly as possible. Both sides want to use me a grist for thier particular mill.
In most surveys on issues I run nearly 50/50 on which side I agree with, LOL!
However, for me the Conservatives just slightly represent my interests in personal freedom a little better. And as a result I can see why they are angry with the liberals.
But on the issues you cite, I differ with the Conservatives as well.
In the end, for me I just happen to lean a little more to the conservative side overall.
But I don't feel my logic is circular. *Both* sides want to push thier particular agenda on me. However my direct experience with liberals has been that they are much more vehement about pushing thier side on me via force of law.
On the other hand, the conservatives, because they do tend toward individual freedom a little more than the collective, push slightly less of the things I don't want on me.
So reiterating, the bottom line for me is that neither side represents my views or interests completely. On some issues I'd prefer what the libs want, on others the conservs.
However, ultimately I want my personal freedom of choice backed up as much as possible. And at least as I've encountered it, conservatives are more likely to agree with me on that, and liberals seem more vehement about trying to homogenize me.
So despite having differences with both sides, being labeled a liberal makes me cringe, while at the same time the prevailing attitude toward the term conservative makes me cringe as well.
So I don't know what label I'd attach to myself. "Personal Freedom-ist"?
Unfortunately, many of the things I want freedom from, are not PC to the Libs. And the same goes for conservatives.
Anyway, bottom line is this, I don't really want either side dictating to me what I must accept. "Good fences makes good neighbors" works for me better than "homogenize everyone". In the end I have to take each issue case by case rather carrying a Lib or Conserv flag.
This is simply laughable. The Democrats "chose a fish over the humans." Reductionist, much?
The Democratic party grows stronger by the day.
Only because the masses are getting poorer each day, and thus feel the need for safety net policies.
If things were going right, we'd all be getting more financially secure within our own house and not feel the need for such things.
The highest ideal is independence, true?
Being dependant on handout programs is not independence, by definition.
Shouldn't the goal be so that we can all live like the rich, rather than all live on gov't support programs?
Seems to me, when folks have wealth they lean Repub. When they don't, they lean Democratic. With some notable exceptions.
For instance media types seem to lean Liberal, which I've always suspected was rooted in their drug use tendencies. And military types, despite have relatively small incomes, tend to lean Republican since repubs tend to be pro defense. Poor agricultural types tend toward Republic as well on occasion, because they are often basically in business for themselves and thus have that same independent "what I earn should be mine" streak.
So yeah, as long as the economy for the many sux... and more and more join the ranks of the many... they will continue to head towards the Democrats. Let them get rich and see which side they jump to.
Which illustrates a typical difference. Repubs are "what's mine is mine". Dems are collectivists.
Richy riches are trying to defend what they have, the rest are trying to survive and ultimately get rich. So the mindset is simple to figure.
The rich don't feel they need to band together as they've "made it". The poor figure they must band together to fight the rich. Fairly easy to see. Repubs tend toward anti-union. Dems toward union, etc.
The whole thing is what it's always been. Class Divide.
Please, point me to any of your posts admonishing your brethren on the derogatory names they had for bush and palin. When you do that, maybe you will have some credibility to ask the question.
One possible explanation... Obama represents what in the military they called "shave a s s es". He went to an elite school, and got ahead because of it, bypassing a lot the pain folks that had to work during those years of their life went through while trying to establish a life.
Probably one part jealousy and one part indignation. Jealous of his leapfroging. Indignant that their hard work wasn't rewarded as highly.
No different than an old timer saying something about "them dern young whipper snappers" in it's psychology.
Yes, because they want to continue to allow women to have control over their own bodies. That's a tolerant position.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
