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.
Second, there is nothing wrong with providing HC for people who cannot afford it.
Are you paying for it?
I doubt it.
Someone has to pay.
Quote:
We, as a nation, subsidize many things for the good of the nation.
You say "we."
What do YOU contribute?
Not much, I bet.
Maybe nothing.
Quote:
If one lives in Montana, that has about a million residents, the rest of the country subsidizes the roads.
How do you know that?
Are there super-expensive super-highways in Montana that I don't know about?
Ten thousand miles of roads that I don't know about?
Quote:
The nation as a whole subsides poor states, sending more aid than they pay in taxes.
The "poor" states subsidize the rest of the nation by providing energy and food.
Up to 80% of their land (e.g., Nevada) is owned by the federal government and devoted to Indian reservations, national parks, and military bases.
But I guess we can all live without food, national defense and energy that in places like New York City -- which is, after all, a notable energy provider and agricultural wonderland full of needed military bases and Indian reservations...
Sorry, but the Republicans faced the same problem when Bush was president.
And yet everything that happened was "his fault alone."
Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet
Are you kidding?
The Democrats COMPLETELY shut Republicans out of the process of debating and passing the ACA and the Stimulus.
Harry Reid only got the ACA passed by using a parliamentary trick.
If so, why did the ACA legislation contain 161 Republican amendments, including several amendments from Senators Mike Enzi [R-WY], Tom Coburn [R-OK], Pat Roberts [R-KS] and others? The ACA legislation reflected the efforts of six bipartisan working groups that met 87 times in 2009.
When House-Senate negotiators began a series of closed-door sessions to craft an ambitious Medicare overhaul, GOP Rep. Bill Thomas summarily announced that he would allow not a single House Democrat -- and only two Senate Democrats -- in.
...
Thomas and his GOP colleagues brushed aside Daschle's complaints and enacted their bill -- aided by a now-infamous three-hour House roll call -- with less minority party involvement than on any major issue in recent times.
...
Recently, however, GOP leaders have largely dispensed with such niceties. Senate Republicans rewrote a massive (and still-pending) energy bill with zero Democratic participation. And top House and Senate Republicans negotiated the complex Medicare bill with only two conciliation-minded Democrats -- Sens. John Breaux (La.) and Max Baucus (Mont.) -- in the room. (When some House Democrats barged in one day, Thomas, the Ways and Means chairman, halted the meeting until they left.)
That would be ultra conservatives who love military action and foreign intervention. Those who love the free market but don't understand vulture capitalism. Those who back the RED while ignoring how cronyism and the political class have undermined the party. Those who hate Democrats for the only reason that they are democrats.
Now just reverse all of that and replace the words to define the polar opposite extreme and call it progressives.
Yea, I understand. Maybe it's you who gives yourself too much credit for having a handle on what I know and don't know, when you don't even know me at all.
I agree with you a lot, but I also see you like to make targets of people at the drop of a hat sometimes.
That's not a neo-con
Neo-Cons co-opted the 1950s/60s democrat position of military interventionism, while also being moderate on spending.
Neo-cons are far from Ultra Conservative on matters of spending. In fact Dick Cheney spoke extensively about how running a deficit isn't really that bad if you can grow the economy at a certain rate....
The neo-cons have NEVER been the ultra-conservatives. In fact the neo-cons have long been the serious intellectuals of the republican party.
neo-conservatives and ultra-conservatives are very different
Quote:
Originally Posted by steven_h
neo-conservatives?
That would be ultra conservatives who love military action and foreign intervention. Those who love the free market but don't understand vulture capitalism. Those who back the RED while ignoring how cronyism and the political class have undermined the party. Those who hate Democrats for the only reason that they are democrats.
Now just reverse all of that and replace the words to define the polar opposite extreme and call it progressives.
Yea, I understand. Maybe it's you who gives yourself too much credit for having a handle on what I know and don't know, when you don't even know me at all.
I agree with you a lot, but I also see you like to make targets of people at the drop of a hat sometimes.
You don't know what it means to be neo-conservative or ultra-conservative. The statement which I highlighted in your quote is patently false.
I intensely dislike most of Obama's policies but I am NOT an "ultra-conservative". You falsely equate "ultra-conservative" with "neo-conservative".
A neo-conservative actually is liberal or at least centrist on social and fiscal issues, but supports a strong foreign and defense policy.
An ultra-conservative is a far-rightist who strongly opposes government spending and holds very right-wing views on social issues. And is an isolationist in foreign policy
There obviously are sharp differences between the two.
The "polar opposite extreme" of the far left regarding domestic policy is ultra-conservatism (i.e. the far right). On foreign policy they agree - they're both isolationist.
And there are of course people who don't neatly fit into either category. They adhere to certain aspects of one but not the other.
Last edited by spectator11040; 08-31-2015 at 10:35 AM..
You don't know what it means to be neo-conservative or ultra-conservative. The statement which I highlighted in your quote is patently false.
I intensely dislike most of Obama's policies but I am NOT an "ultra-conservative". You falsely equate "ultra-conservative" with "neo-conservative".
A neo-conservative actually is liberal or at least centrist on social and fiscal issues, but supports a strong foreign and defense policy.
An ultra-conservative is a far-rightist who strongly opposes government spending and holds very right-wing views on social issues. And is an isolationist in foreign policy
There obviously are sharp differences between the two.
The "polar opposite extreme" of the far left regarding domestic policy is ultra-conservatism (i.e. the far right). On foreign policy they agree - they're both isolationist.
And there are of course people who don't neatly fit into either category. They adhere to certain aspects of one but not the other.
I'm feeling really special now that so many have made it their goal to define neocon and every level of conservatism, as if THAT is what this thread is about.
Let's do this... Replace neocon with uber-conservative. This should cover most everyone's definition of far right, which is what I meant.
One thing is for certain, nearly 75% of the people polled are firmly in the D or worse range. That's an impressive display of solidarity for city-data posters.
One thing is for certain, nearly 75% of the people polled are firmly in the D or worse range. That's an impressive display of solidarity for city-data posters.
This poll attracts those that hate President Obama and we know who they are. The poll/POC, are not necessarily reflective of the country.
With him being in office for seven years, I thought I'd see if sentiment has changed in his second term.
Now that we have this misguided Iran deal, his sidelining of Congress and Senate, his disregard for how our government and Constitution are intended to function - I've changed my D to an F.
I totally expect the cheerleaders to start bashing, and I have plenty of crackers for the zombie parrots in here.
Haters gonna hate. From the threads and opinions on CD, i expected about 80% haters. I'm surprised it's only like 70%
Thankfully Bush didn't have the significant mindless cult following Obama does. Can you imagine?
For the O-cult, the messiah can do no wrong, and anyone who disagrees is radical/fringe/uneducated etc.
At this point in Bush's term, he was at ~30% approval. Obama is at 46%.
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.
neo-conservatives and ultra-conservatives are very different
...
