Are progressives actually open-minded?

[peach174]

Yeah!
Look at how many times conservatives and moderates here would make comments about President Obama representing only Liberal policies but was always falsely accused being racist or worse being called names and or bullied.
Ya know if Obama had moved more toward the center after the 2010 elections when Dems started losing their seats continually for the next six years they would have seen the dominos falling.
No it had to be about his policies and not what was good for the country.

Your opinion dismisses the fact that his policies were principled, something unheard of by the Party of McConnell, a party which put party first, well before We the People, and once advertised before its mendacity was exposed by Republian Governers and the Tea Party, as Country First.

Principled ?
What's moral about getting more people dependant on government?
Especially the long term unemployed.
Many are angry that they are now takers on food stamps rather than being the givers.

 

[emilynghiem]

Progressives claim to be "open-minded" but over the past decade or so, all evidence to the contrary.

Naw, progressives are completely "open-minded" as long as you agree with everything they say, think or feel.

"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." -- William F. Buckley, Jr.

Our society is becoming more selfish and stupid. That's why cons won.

Look at your beloved Russia. How are the citizens there doing? Yet they love Putin. You're basically a dumb Russia.

Dear sealybobo
The liberal Democrats were equally selfish in projecting and imposing beliefs through federal government from right to health care and right to marriage that violated states rights.

You can't claim to be prochoice and for separating beliefs from govt, then pass laws and impose rulings that violate free choice of individuals who don't share these same political beliefs.

That is contradictory.

Remember that DOMA was passed by Clinton and endorsed by both Bill and Hillary Clinton although it was unconstitutional.

Totally contradictory, Democrats brought this on with their own abuse of party media and corporate ties to push agenda through govt that is biased by political beliefs and not Constitutional!

Affordable Healthcare should be a right.

OK sealybobo
1. So if affordable health care means giving up drugs and using spiritual healing to cut costs of crime, abuse, addiction, and disease
Are you willing to require spiritual healing so the money saved can pay for health care for everyone?

2. Are you willing to invest your own labor taxes time and money into funding schools to train enough doctors nurses and administrators to build and run clinics in every district?

If you believe in right to health care are you willing to pay the costs yourself?

That's how right to life people are treated, and expected to pay the costs themselves if they believe in it so much.
Are you willing to do the same?

 

[P@triot]

You are defended by the labor of thousands of somebody else's in our military. You're saying you don't have the right to a national defense?

First of all, the Constitution says I have a right to defense. It does not say I have a right to healthcare.

Second, those men and women volunteered to defend this nation. That's why I don't whine when a physician volunteers his labor for charity work.

That's the way it's supposed to work in America NYcarbineer - people choosing for themselves and not being forced into slavery. It's just that progressives are too greedy and too lazy to engage in charity, so they want government to force other people to do it for them.

 

[emilynghiem]

It should be a right. I don't know what solution would make you happy. Maybe we have government funded hospitals that provide life saving services for cheap to compete with private insurance.

And we pay any students school if they agree to work for these hospitals for ten years. They'll only make $100k a year vs a private doctor who makes $300k but this would be a great program for people who don't go to school because of the costs.

These hospitals would be in every poor big city. Long waiting lists and not as good as private but an option for people who can't afford or don't want insurance.

Remember our hospitals aren't free to turn away people who can't pay. That's not freedom either. Do you want to get rid of that?

Agree , we can make health care affordable this way by investing in education and combining public health services with the supervised training.

sealybobo this can be implemented by converting prisons, public schools and public housing to be sustainable community campuses.

But this is done state by state.
Imposing mandates federally is the opposite direction.

The charter schools and democratically elected systems of taking back local controls is the way to shift power back to the people not give up more power to the feds.

 

[P@triot]

Your opinion dismisses the fact that his policies were principled, something unheard of by the Party of McConnell, a party which put party first, well before We the People, and once advertised before its mendacity was exposed by Republian Governers and the Tea Party, as Country First.

What is "principled" about shredding the constitution and violating the law?!? Obama was one of the least "principled" presidents we have ever seen.

 

[P@triot]

And yet you lumped 'progressives' together.

Yeah? And? I just lumped muslims in together too (while recognizing that there are always exceptions p).

Our country was founded by way of a non-religious jihad.

Then it is not a "jihad". We fought to be free. We didn't fight to force other people to convert to christianity. Big difference.

 

[12icer]

dimocrats will not vote for anyone but a piece of shit democrat, Democrats like me will vote for the person who actually moves the country forward, and not backward like the current occupant of the suit. Liberals are the epitome of regressive policy, they take away choice, and give the government the right to DICTATE what a person can have and his station in life by financial, and social control. That means the reinstatement of a RULING CLASS to choose each option for every citizen, and to force that person to accept that choice with the power of the government to enforce their decision. That is not open minded, and it is not freedom, it IS and always has been a socialist\communist\dictatorial ideal. The constitution has a "PREAMBLE" It states the reasons for it's existence. Read it, it gives a background for the things government should provide. Liberals expand the "Promote the General Welfare" clause, and ignore the "Secure the Blessings of Liberty" clause, and deny the Provide for the COMMON Defense" exists.

 

[emilynghiem]

You are defended by the labor of thousands of somebody else's in our military. You're saying you don't have the right to a national defense?

First of all, the Constitution says I have a right to defense. It does not say I have a right to healthcare.

Second, those men and women volunteered to defend this nation. That's why I don't whine when a physician volunteers his labor for charity work.

That's the way it's supposed to work in America NYcarbineer - people choosing for themselves and not being forced into slavery. It's just that progressives are too greedy and too lazy to engage in charity, so they want government to force other people to do it for them.

Dear P@triot
The liberal Democrats also demonize alienate and even penalize Christians, whose counseling has turned lives around to end addiction to crime, drugs and incarceration, and whose practices of spiritual healing would free up the resources needed to provide universal care.

The demonizers and rejecters of Christian practice have shot themselves in the foot. They want to help the mentally ill and addicted, but refuse the best solution that is free and most effective in curing causes of addiction, abuse, and both physical and mental illness to save lives and millions of not billions in medical resources that could make health care affordable to all.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I disagree. Remember those pharma companies who overcharged?

Ummm..no, because there is no such thing as "overcharged"; if the ask is too high then you don't have to pay the ask, it's called voluntary exchange and it works just fine as long as you keep third parties (government) out of it. Companies can't charge more than their customers are willing to pay for their products and/or services, otherwise companies don't stay in business and more efficient producers take their place. The only time that equation becomes short-circuited is when you get politicians and bureaucrats involved, then it becomes involuntary exchange and the price mechanism gets distorted to the point where it no longer reflects true supply/demand and cost of production.

Then I would also guess you're OK with denying people who have pre existing conditions?

For insurance? You bet I am OK with it, you can't insure against risk that has already occurred, but we don't have health insurance anymore, what we have is a bastardized health care market and "health care cost shifting" policies, which is why health care is so fucking expensive.

And I bet you also think public schools should be ended and only people who want to and can afford an education should get one. Is that right? An education isn't a right either?

No, education isn't a right unless you can provide it for yourself, it's another "goods and services", I don't understand why this concept is so hard for you to grasp, it's very simple, YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO SOMEBODY ELSE'S LABOR.

Hey, I don't have kids and my nephews go to the most expensive private school in Michigan. Mitt Romney went to that school. Remember it came out he was a bully back in school? It was at this school. My brother pays $40k a year for private school. He didn't mind paying for public schools but if poor people who depend on public schools didn't show up to vote or voted GOP???

I am all for Defunding public schools. Same with welfare. If you can't afford to educate and feed your child don't have one. We are already overpopulated.

That's nice, however none of what you posted has anything to do with the concept of RIGHTS.

It's immoral for me to put a gun to your head and force you to pay for something that I want or need, it's no less immoral for government (or the majority) to do the same thing, both scenarios are violations of your rights as a human being, it's essentially turning you into a slave for whatever period of time was required for you to earn the money that is being taken from you by force.

The reason people advocate using government force to make people pay for XYZ (or do XYZ) is because their arguments aren't sound enough or persuasive enough to get people to do it voluntarily, which explains why generally speaking when the government issues "mandates" along with "promised benefits" you can always count on the getting exactly the opposite of the "promised benefits"; if the benefits are so good and the costs are justified why the hell do you have to use FORCE to get people to go along with it?

The income and other taxes are not a form of robbery, or anything illegal. Taxes are in COTUS, and are legal. So stop echoing the RW Bullshit / meme and try to be rational.

A balanced budget amendment is foolish, for only fools do not understand a budget, every budget, is only a plan. That may be too abstract for the brainwashed, but all of what I've written above is true and factual.

 

[P@triot]

Our society is becoming more selfish and stupid. That's why cons won.

I rest my case. This liberal wrote an article about how his side calls anyone who doesn't vote for their candidates "racist" and "stupid". Sealy's first post says she is "open-minded". Her second posts says "society is stupid" for not voting for Hillary.

Folks...you can't make this stuff up. I'm 100% convinced now that Sealy needs meds. There is a serious mental health issue there. Anyone who can contradict themselves that quick is not sane.

Keep in mind that boob is on my ignore list because he used to follow me around attaching tags to my posts telling people to rape me, and posting his desire for me and my kids to die in various and assorted ways.

Are you serious?!?

Yup.

What is wrong with progressives?!? Who is so sick and disturbed as to advocate that a woman should be raped?!? They keep doing that.

 

[P@triot]

A balanced budget amendment is foolish, for only fools do not understand a budget, every budget, is only a plan. That may be too abstract for the brainwashed, but all of what I've written above is true and factual.

Only an idiot spends more money than they have....

 

[boedicca]

At one time, Progs were So Open Minded that their brains fell out. Now, they are just vessels to be filled with the latest Global Elitist Propaganda.

 

[emilynghiem]

I disagree. Remember those pharma companies who overcharged?

Ummm..no, because there is no such thing as "overcharged"; if the ask is too high then you don't have to pay the ask, it's called voluntary exchange and it works just fine as long as you keep third parties (government) out of it. Companies can't charge more than their customers are willing to pay for their products and/or services, otherwise companies don't stay in business and more efficient producers take their place. The only time that equation becomes short-circuited is when you get politicians and bureaucrats involved, then it becomes involuntary exchange and the price mechanism gets distorted to the point where it no longer reflects true supply/demand and cost of production.

Then I would also guess you're OK with denying people who have pre existing conditions?

For insurance? You bet I am OK with it, you can't insure against risk that has already occurred, but we don't have health insurance anymore, what we have is a bastardized health care market and "health care cost shifting" policies, which is why health care is so fucking expensive.

And I bet you also think public schools should be ended and only people who want to and can afford an education should get one. Is that right? An education isn't a right either?

No, education isn't a right unless you can provide it for yourself, it's another "goods and services", I don't understand why this concept is so hard for you to grasp, it's very simple, YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO SOMEBODY ELSE'S LABOR.

You are defended by the labor of thousands of somebody else's in our military.

You're saying you don't have the right to a national defense?

Dear NYcarbineer
Did you miss the previous post that people CHOOSE to serve in the military. There are provisions for conscientious objectors.

So where are the exemptions for people who by our Constitutional beliefs object to federal run mandates and heath care that violate OUR beliefs in state rights and choice of funding charities instead of insurance?

The difference Is citizens AGREE on giving federal government and Congress the authority for military and defense budgets.

We don't agree on health care due to political beliefs about states rights and what constitutes a right or imposes involuntary servitude.

If you are going to mandate affordable health care, why not mandate spiritual healing to cut costs instead of mandating insurance that doesn't cure the cause of disease or addiction like spiritual healing does for FREE.

If spiritual healing is going to remain a free choice, even if it would enable resources to be stretched to save more lives and serve more people, then shouldn't all means of reducing health care costs remain free?

Who are you to regulate which choices of health care to force people to pay for?

 

[NightFox]

I disagree. Remember those pharma companies who overcharged?

Ummm..no, because there is no such thing as "overcharged"; if the ask is too high then you don't have to pay the ask, it's called voluntary exchange and it works just fine as long as you keep third parties (government) out of it. Companies can't charge more than their customers are willing to pay for their products and/or services, otherwise companies don't stay in business and more efficient producers take their place. The only time that equation becomes short-circuited is when you get politicians and bureaucrats involved, then it becomes involuntary exchange and the price mechanism gets distorted to the point where it no longer reflects true supply/demand and cost of production.

Then I would also guess you're OK with denying people who have pre existing conditions?

For insurance? You bet I am OK with it, you can't insure against risk that has already occurred, but we don't have health insurance anymore, what we have is a bastardized health care market and "health care cost shifting" policies, which is why health care is so fucking expensive.

And I bet you also think public schools should be ended and only people who want to and can afford an education should get one. Is that right? An education isn't a right either?

No, education isn't a right unless you can provide it for yourself, it's another "goods and services", I don't understand why this concept is so hard for you to grasp, it's very simple, YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO SOMEBODY ELSE'S LABOR.

Hey, I don't have kids and my nephews go to the most expensive private school in Michigan. Mitt Romney went to that school. Remember it came out he was a bully back in school? It was at this school. My brother pays $40k a year for private school. He didn't mind paying for public schools but if poor people who depend on public schools didn't show up to vote or voted GOP???

I am all for Defunding public schools. Same with welfare. If you can't afford to educate and feed your child don't have one. We are already overpopulated.

That's nice, however none of what you posted has anything to do with the concept of RIGHTS.

It's immoral for me to put a gun to your head and force you to pay for something that I want or need, it's no less immoral for government (or the majority) to do the same thing, both scenarios are violations of your rights as a human being, it's essentially turning you into a slave for whatever period of time was required for you to earn the money that is being taken from you by force.

The reason people advocate using government force to make people pay for XYZ (or do XYZ) is because their arguments aren't sound enough or persuasive enough to get people to do it voluntarily, which explains why generally speaking when the government issues "mandates" along with "promised benefits" you can always count on the getting exactly the opposite of the "promised benefits"; if the benefits are so good and the costs are justified why the hell do you have to use FORCE to get people to go along with it?

The income and other taxes are not a form of robbery, or anything illegal. Taxes are in COTUS, and are legal. So stop echoing the RW Bullshit / meme and try to be rational.

A balanced budget amendment is foolish, for only fools do not understand a budget, every budget, is only a plan. That may be too abstract for the brainwashed, but all of what I've written above is true and factual.

Why doesn't it surprise me that an eminent scholar such as yourself doesn't understand the difference between legality and morality?

...and who said anything about "a balanced budget amendment"? or taxes being a form of robbery? Either the discussion is so far above your head that the voices in it have been reduced to speaking pure gibberish or your hallucinations are getting the better of you. In either case take your own advice and try to be rational, for a change.

 

[P@triot]

The income and other taxes are not a form of robbery, or anything illegal.

They are when they exceed anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the states. You'd know that if you tried reading the Constitution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

dimocrats will not vote for anyone but a piece of shit democrat, Democrats like me will vote for the person who actually moves the country forward, and not backward like the current occupant of the suit. Liberals are the epitome of regressive policy, they take away choice, and give the government the right to DICTATE what a person can have and his station in life by financial, and social control. That means the reinstatement of a RULING CLASS to choose each option for every citizen, and to force that person to accept that choice with the power of the government to enforce their decision. That is not open minded, and it is not freedom, it IS and always has been a socialist\communist\dictatorial ideal. The constitution has a "PREAMBLE" It states the reasons for it's existence. Read it, it gives a background for the things government should provide. Liberals expand the "Promote the General Welfare" clause, and ignore the "Secure the Blessings of Liberty" clause, and deny the Provide for the COMMON Defense" exists.

Another brainwashed member ^^^. As I understand the Preamble, to use 20th Century terms, it was and remains a vision and a mission statement for our nations leaders.

Let's parse the words and debate them:

• We the People (infers that our nation will be ruled by the will of the people by the vote);
• Of the United States (infers only citizens can vote);
• In order to form a more perfect union (sum reject the union for regionalism)
• Establish Justice, (objected by the Lock her up set, for one example);
• Insure Domestic Tranquility (infers one nation of diverse people treated with the same equity)
• Provide for the common defense, human being need to be defended from terrorists and disease;
• Promote the General Welfare, which suggests equal rights in law and equity
• Secure the blessing of liberty for all the people within the parameters of law and equity (equity being the quality of being fair and impartial;
• and our Posterity; (are kids and theirs).

If the reader disagrees, explain why and enlighten me!

 

[Wry Catcher]

The income and other taxes are not a form of robbery, or anything illegal.

They are when they exceed anything outside of the 18 enumerated powers delegated to the federal government by the states. You'd know that if you tried reading the Constitution.

I've had ConLaw. Maybe you ought to read COTUS with an unbiased agenda and using sagacious reasoning. Start with the Magna Carta, and worked your way through the Articles of Federation and the debate in Philadelphia during the drafting of COTUS.

 

[P@triot]

dimocrats will not vote for anyone but a piece of shit democrat, Democrats like me will vote for the person who actually moves the country forward, and not backward like the current occupant of the suit. Liberals are the epitome of regressive policy, they take away choice, and give the government the right to DICTATE what a person can have and his station in life by financial, and social control. That means the reinstatement of a RULING CLASS to choose each option for every citizen, and to force that person to accept that choice with the power of the government to enforce their decision. That is not open minded, and it is not freedom, it IS and always has been a socialist\communist\dictatorial ideal. The constitution has a "PREAMBLE" It states the reasons for it's existence. Read it, it gives a background for the things government should provide. Liberals expand the "Promote the General Welfare" clause, and ignore the "Secure the Blessings of Liberty" clause, and deny the Provide for the COMMON Defense" exists.

Another brainwashed member ^^^. As I understand the Preamble, to use 20th Century terms, it was and remains a vision and a mission statement for our nations leaders.

Let's parse the words and debate them:

• We the People (infers that our nation will be ruled by the will of the people by the vote);
• Of the United States (infers only citizens can vote);
• In order to form a more perfect union (sum reject the union for regionalism)
• Establish Justice, (objected by the Lock her up set, for one example);
• Insure Domestic Tranquility (infers one nation of diverse people treated with the same equity)
• Provide for the common defense, human being need to be defended from terrorists and disease;
• Promote the General Welfare, which suggests equal rights in law and equity
• Secure the blessing of liberty for all the people within the parameters of law and equity (equity being the quality of being fair and impartial;
• and our Posterity; (are kids and theirs).

If the reader disagrees, explain why and enlighten me!

Why are you wrong? Oh where to begin...

For starters, the preamble is just that: a preamble. It did not dictate laws, structure of government, limitations, or anything else. It was just a quick introduction.

In addition, everything you said was "infers". There is no "infers" in law. The law is written in black and white and absolute. No inference allowed (because each side of a contractual agreement could and would have their own inferences).

 

[peach174]

I disagree. Remember those pharma companies who overcharged?

Ummm..no, because there is no such thing as "overcharged"; if the ask is too high then you don't have to pay the ask, it's called voluntary exchange and it works just fine as long as you keep third parties (government) out of it. Companies can't charge more than their customers are willing to pay for their products and/or services, otherwise companies don't stay in business and more efficient producers take their place. The only time that equation becomes short-circuited is when you get politicians and bureaucrats involved, then it becomes involuntary exchange and the price mechanism gets distorted to the point where it no longer reflects true supply/demand and cost of production.

Then I would also guess you're OK with denying people who have pre existing conditions?

For insurance? You bet I am OK with it, you can't insure against risk that has already occurred, but we don't have health insurance anymore, what we have is a bastardized health care market and "health care cost shifting" policies, which is why health care is so fucking expensive.

And I bet you also think public schools should be ended and only people who want to and can afford an education should get one. Is that right? An education isn't a right either?

No, education isn't a right unless you can provide it for yourself, it's another "goods and services", I don't understand why this concept is so hard for you to grasp, it's very simple, YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO SOMEBODY ELSE'S LABOR.

Hey, I don't have kids and my nephews go to the most expensive private school in Michigan. Mitt Romney went to that school. Remember it came out he was a bully back in school? It was at this school. My brother pays $40k a year for private school. He didn't mind paying for public schools but if poor people who depend on public schools didn't show up to vote or voted GOP???

I am all for Defunding public schools. Same with welfare. If you can't afford to educate and feed your child don't have one. We are already overpopulated.

That's nice, however none of what you posted has anything to do with the concept of RIGHTS.

It's immoral for me to put a gun to your head and force you to pay for something that I want or need, it's no less immoral for government (or the majority) to do the same thing, both scenarios are violations of your rights as a human being, it's essentially turning you into a slave for whatever period of time was required for you to earn the money that is being taken from you by force.

The reason people advocate using government force to make people pay for XYZ (or do XYZ) is because their arguments aren't sound enough or persuasive enough to get people to do it voluntarily, which explains why generally speaking when the government issues "mandates" along with "promised benefits" you can always count on the getting exactly the opposite of the "promised benefits"; if the benefits are so good and the costs are justified why the hell do you have to use FORCE to get people to go along with it?

The income and other taxes are not a form of robbery, or anything illegal. Taxes are in COTUS, and are legal. So stop echoing the RW Bullshit / meme and try to be rational.

A balanced budget amendment is foolish, for only fools do not understand a budget, every budget, is only a plan. That may be too abstract for the brainwashed, but all of what I've written above is true and factual.

.
Do you have any knowledge at all of why our Revolutionary War stared?
Over taxing, too many regulations and no representation.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A balanced budget amendment is foolish, for only fools do not understand a budget, every budget, is only a plan. That may be too abstract for the brainwashed, but all of what I've written above is true and factual.

Only an idiot spends more money than they have....

I must be an idiot. My first house which I bought in my early 20's developed a roof leak. I borrowed money I did not have to replace the roof, so it didn't not ruin everything inside; I also borrowed money to insulate the walls and replaced the double hung wooden windows with modern windows (at the time) which kept the cold out.

Budgets are plans, when shit hits the fan (Katrina, is an example of shit hitting the fan due to poor maintenance and failure to build proper levees). Gee who would have thought a hurricane would hit NOLA? Maybe the people who went to the bar in Galveston, TX and saw pictures of the destruction of that town 80 or so years before.