Compromise for my fellow Republicans

[LibertyForAll]

And in the world of healthcare from twenty years ago you could. Employers included health insurance as a low cost benefit to employees, usually picking up the whole tab.
With rising costs today, employers want out of the healthcare business. They alter hiring, reduce hours, hire people as independent contractors....all to avoid paying health insurance. The self employed and those who work for small companies cannot compete in the healthcare market

Who is able to step in and fill the void?

Yes.......the Government

Who else do you propose?

How about we get all the people that think people should have free health care to sign a petition and they can volunteer to pay extra taxes to go to a health care fund. The fund will help as many people as possible. This way those that want to give can give and those that don't won't have to. Then everyone is happy.

Where in all the healthcare debate has anyone said everyone should receive free healthcare?

Oh yea......you must watch FoxNews

I actually don't watch tv much at all. You can substitute socialized health care if you want. The point remains the same.

 

[rightwinger]

How about we get all the people that think people should have free health care to sign a petition and they can volunteer to pay extra taxes to go to a health care fund. The fund will help as many people as possible. This way those that want to give can give and those that don't won't have to. Then everyone is happy.

Where in all the healthcare debate has anyone said everyone should receive free healthcare?

Oh yea......you must watch FoxNews

He did n't say everyone should have free healthcare coverage. What he said we get all the people that think people should have free healthcare coverage.
See how that works when you take something out of context and when someone else put's what was said back into context?

Which people are those?

Show me all the people who say everyone should have free healthcare?

 

[kwc57]

Sheep and wolves do not govern constituents. Poor analogy.

Of course they don't, it was an example of two things having the same goal in life (survival,) but two different outcomes

Would Liberals survive in a nation governed by Conservatives? I know that Conservatives pander to the fears in folks, so it's understandable that such fearful people would be willing to believe that Conservatives would perish in a nation governed by Liberals.

Your analogy ends in the death of the sheep. Your fears presume the death of Conservatives. It does not ring true to me because I am not persuaded by fearful politics.

Sure you are, you vote Democrat. Democrats stay in power thru the fear of not being able to care for yourself without goverment controlling your life. Democrats convince poor people and minorities that they need the entitlements they will provide because the world isn't fair and they can't survive on their own. I'll see your fear and raise you.

 

[rightwinger]

How about we get all the people that think people should have free health care to sign a petition and they can volunteer to pay extra taxes to go to a health care fund. The fund will help as many people as possible. This way those that want to give can give and those that don't won't have to. Then everyone is happy.

Where in all the healthcare debate has anyone said everyone should receive free healthcare?

Oh yea......you must watch FoxNews

I actually don't watch tv much at all. You can substitute socialized health care if you want. The point remains the same.

Where in Obamacare is socialized healthcare provided? You are aware it uses private insurance companies aren't you?

 

[LibertyForAll]

What if there isn't a candidate who supports your values? How do you choose between the lesser of two evils? And since you seem to like to deal in absolutes here, not voting isn't an option. What do you do?

You write that person in that does.

And that accomplishes what exactly? Other than the possibility that the person you really, really did not want to get elected, getting elected. Now instead of screwing yourself a little, you just screwed yourself a lot. Not the best way to enjoy your moral high ground is it?

If the point of contention is not important then you may feel you can compromise and maintain your integrity. Like if one candidate says we should get rid of taxes altogether and the other says we should lower them to 5% or something then I could maybe see it. If you are talking about a candidate that is supposed to be for small government that has grandiose pork projects already lined up or would support legislation that increases the power of government then you have a dilemma. What is important to you and how important is it? These are questions we all have to ask ourselves when we are deciding who to support. The problem that I see in the GOP is there is a clear difference in most of the candidates platforms and the party platform.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where in all the healthcare debate has anyone said everyone should receive free healthcare?

Oh yea......you must watch FoxNews

He did n't say everyone should have free healthcare coverage. What he said we get all the people that think people should have free healthcare coverage.
See how that works when you take something out of context and when someone else put's what was said back into context?

Which people are those?

Show me all the people who say everyone should have free healthcare?

The only one who's saying anything about everyone having healthcare coverage is you no one has mentioned the words everyone should have healthcare coverage but you. All I did was point out that was not said what you claimed was said.

 

[Paulie]

What if there isn't a candidate who supports your values? How do you choose between the lesser of two evils? And since you seem to like to deal in absolutes here, not voting isn't an option. What do you do?

You write that person in that does.

And that accomplishes what exactly? Other than the possibility that the person you really, really did not want to get elected, getting elected. Now instead of screwing yourself a little, you just screwed yourself a lot. Not the best way to enjoy your moral high ground is it?

As a libertarian leaning conservative, I'm not going to reward the republican party with an election win if they're not going to offer me those ideals that drive me to register with them in the first place. I'd just as soon see them lose an election and learn from their fuck up and move back to the roots that made them the party for conservatives.

Giving them the WH now means at LEAST another 8 years of continuing to steer to the left in one way or another. If Obama gets another 4 years, it'll be the same shit as with Romney only it'll be just 4 years with the possibility of maybe a Rand Paul emerging as a contender in 2016.

Right now, the republican party has no intention of being conservative, and they've proven that with who they're propping up this cycle. So I say fuck them.

 

[Nosmo King]

Really? Not even if obama starts beating those war drums used for Iraq and started beating them for Iran?

Moving the goalposts. But I'll play along. If the justification for war with Iraq is as flimsy, prevaricating and unjustified as the roll up to Iran was, I'd oppose him as I did the Bush administration. But Obama isn't running on a platform of war with Iran.

Hardly, after all you did say that

It does not ring true to me because I am not persuaded by fearful politics

I just wanted to see how true that was and from your reaction it not very true.

But Obama isn't running on a platform of war with Iran.

When was the first time obama said he was going to take military action before he did it? You do realize there is three fleets of ships off the coast of Iran right now.

At least Bush got authorization from congress before he did anything. obama hasn't.

I did not realize we had attacked, invaded and occupied Iran.

 

[kwc57]

You write that person in that does.

And that accomplishes what exactly? Other than the possibility that the person you really, really did not want to get elected, getting elected. Now instead of screwing yourself a little, you just screwed yourself a lot. Not the best way to enjoy your moral high ground is it?

As a libertarian leaning conservative, I'm not going to reward the republican party with an election win if they're not going to offer me those ideals that drive me to register with them in the first place. I'd just as soon see them lose an election and learn from their fuck up and move back to the roots that made them the party for conservatives.

Giving them the WH now means at LEAST another 8 years of continuing to steer to the left in one way or another. If Obama gets another 4 years, it'll be the same shit as with Romney only it'll be just 4 years with the possibility of maybe a Rand Paul emerging as a contender in 2016.

Right now, the republican party has no intention of being conservative, and they've proven that with who they're propping up this cycle. So I say fuck them.

Paulie, I'm a libertarian leaning conservative too. I understand what you are saying. However, I'd literally vote for Mickey Mouse or Bozo the Clown over Obama. He's that bad and he has to go. Would I prefer a Ron Paul or a Gary Johnson presidency? You damn skippy. But I don't see that happening this election. While I could certainly do a write in on the ballot, will my principled vote for Paul or Johnson instead of the actual candidate on the ballot allow Dear Ruler another 4 years to destroy the country? See, for me personally, that is what I am weighing. Me, I don't want to sit there with a smug look on my face saying I did the "right thing" while I watch our nation die.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Where in all the healthcare debate has anyone said everyone should receive free healthcare?

Oh yea......you must watch FoxNews

I actually don't watch tv much at all. You can substitute socialized health care if you want. The point remains the same.

Where in Obamacare is socialized healthcare provided? You are aware it uses private insurance companies aren't you?

I wasn't specifically talking about Obamacare, I was addressing your comments like this one:

The values that say I care about others getting affordable healthcare even though I, myself have good coverage. The values that recognize healthcare is increasingly unaffordable to other Americans and that a single illness can destroy them. The values that realize you have little control over what medical challenges you face

The values that say we need to attack this problem as a nation and that it is too big for most Americans to handle individually

and this one:

Who is able to step in and fill the void?

Yes.......the Government

Who else do you propose?

What you are proposing here is socialized health care. You want the government to step in and provide health care for people who can't afford it while the people who can afford it have to pay for all of it. That is socialism. Own it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And that accomplishes what exactly? Other than the possibility that the person you really, really did not want to get elected, getting elected. Now instead of screwing yourself a little, you just screwed yourself a lot. Not the best way to enjoy your moral high ground is it?

As a libertarian leaning conservative, I'm not going to reward the republican party with an election win if they're not going to offer me those ideals that drive me to register with them in the first place. I'd just as soon see them lose an election and learn from their fuck up and move back to the roots that made them the party for conservatives.

Giving them the WH now means at LEAST another 8 years of continuing to steer to the left in one way or another. If Obama gets another 4 years, it'll be the same shit as with Romney only it'll be just 4 years with the possibility of maybe a Rand Paul emerging as a contender in 2016.

Right now, the republican party has no intention of being conservative, and they've proven that with who they're propping up this cycle. So I say fuck them.

Paulie, I'm a libertarian leaning conservative too. I understand what you are saying. However, I'd literally vote for Mickey Mouse or Bozo the Clown over Obama. He's that bad and he has to go. Would I prefer a Ron Paul or a Gary Johnson presidency? You damn skippy. But I don't see that happening this election. While I could certainly do a write in on the ballot, will my principled vote for Paul or Johnson instead of the actual candidate on the ballot allow Dear Ruler another 4 years to destroy the country? See, for me personally, that is what I am weighing. Me, I don't want to sit there with a smug look on my face saying I did the "right thing" while I watch our nation die.

Here's the way I see in 1943 if the Germans could have traded Hitler for Goring would there have been change or just moving Hitler out to replace him with a Hitler agenda supporter. I realize that may seem extreme but that's the only way I can compare it. Even though Hitler would be gone his agenda would still be in place and someone who would push it. That's what you would have with obama and the rest of the GOP picks. obama maybe gone but his agenda is still in place.

 

[rightwinger]

As a libertarian leaning conservative, I'm not going to reward the republican party with an election win if they're not going to offer me those ideals that drive me to register with them in the first place. I'd just as soon see them lose an election and learn from their fuck up and move back to the roots that made them the party for conservatives.

Giving them the WH now means at LEAST another 8 years of continuing to steer to the left in one way or another. If Obama gets another 4 years, it'll be the same shit as with Romney only it'll be just 4 years with the possibility of maybe a Rand Paul emerging as a contender in 2016.

Right now, the republican party has no intention of being conservative, and they've proven that with who they're propping up this cycle. So I say fuck them.

Paulie, I'm a libertarian leaning conservative too. I understand what you are saying. However, I'd literally vote for Mickey Mouse or Bozo the Clown over Obama. He's that bad and he has to go. Would I prefer a Ron Paul or a Gary Johnson presidency? You damn skippy. But I don't see that happening this election. While I could certainly do a write in on the ballot, will my principled vote for Paul or Johnson instead of the actual candidate on the ballot allow Dear Ruler another 4 years to destroy the country? See, for me personally, that is what I am weighing. Me, I don't want to sit there with a smug look on my face saying I did the "right thing" while I watch our nation die.

Here's the way I see in 1943 if the Germans could have traded Hitler for Goring would there have been change or just moving Hitler out to replace him with a Hitler agenda supporter. I realize that may seem extreme but that's the only way I can compare it. Even though Hitler would be gone his agenda would still be in place and someone who would push it. That's what you would have with obama and the rest of the GOP picks. obama maybe gone but his agenda is still in place.

Let me guess??????






Ron Paul

 

[rightwinger]

I actually don't watch tv much at all. You can substitute socialized health care if you want. The point remains the same.

Where in Obamacare is socialized healthcare provided? You are aware it uses private insurance companies aren't you?

I wasn't specifically talking about Obamacare, I was addressing your comments like this one:

The values that say I care about others getting affordable healthcare even though I, myself have good coverage. The values that recognize healthcare is increasingly unaffordable to other Americans and that a single illness can destroy them. The values that realize you have little control over what medical challenges you face

The values that say we need to attack this problem as a nation and that it is too big for most Americans to handle individually

and this one:

Who is able to step in and fill the void?

Yes.......the Government

Who else do you propose?

What you are proposing here is socialized health care. You want the government to step in and provide health care for people who can't afford it while the people who can afford it have to pay for all of it. That is socialism. Own it.

Where have I proposed socialized healthcare? It would be the best thing for the country, but we have too many wing nuts opposing it to even think about it

Socialized healthcare would mean everyone pays to the government and the government disperses money to the healthcare providers

The free market of employers providing health insurance is saying they do not want the responsibility. The Government is forming large insurance pools that used to be formed by employers. That is not socialism
What we are doing is using thousands of independent insurers to provide that coverage. It is not socialism...it is capitalism at it's finest (or worse)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Paulie, I'm a libertarian leaning conservative too. I understand what you are saying. However, I'd literally vote for Mickey Mouse or Bozo the Clown over Obama. He's that bad and he has to go. Would I prefer a Ron Paul or a Gary Johnson presidency? You damn skippy. But I don't see that happening this election. While I could certainly do a write in on the ballot, will my principled vote for Paul or Johnson instead of the actual candidate on the ballot allow Dear Ruler another 4 years to destroy the country? See, for me personally, that is what I am weighing. Me, I don't want to sit there with a smug look on my face saying I did the "right thing" while I watch our nation die.

Here's the way I see in 1943 if the Germans could have traded Hitler for Goring would there have been change or just moving Hitler out to replace him with a Hitler agenda supporter. I realize that may seem extreme but that's the only way I can compare it. Even though Hitler would be gone his agenda would still be in place and someone who would push it. That's what you would have with obama and the rest of the GOP picks. obama maybe gone but his agenda is still in place.

Let me guess??????






Ron Paul

I have principles unlike some it's not anyone but obama when your choice is obama or obama agenda supporter.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Where in Obamacare is socialized healthcare provided? You are aware it uses private insurance companies aren't you?

I wasn't specifically talking about Obamacare, I was addressing your comments like this one:



and this one:

Who is able to step in and fill the void?

Yes.......the Government

Who else do you propose?

What you are proposing here is socialized health care. You want the government to step in and provide health care for people who can't afford it while the people who can afford it have to pay for all of it. That is socialism. Own it.

Where have I proposed socialized healthcare? It would be the best thing for the country, but we have too many wing nuts opposing it to even think about it

Socialized healthcare would mean everyone pays to the government and the government disperses money to the healthcare providers

What we are doing is using thousands of independent insurers to provide that coverage. It is not socialism...it is capitalism at it's finest (or worse)

Playing with your words? No I don't recall you actually mentioning the words socialized healthcare but you did mention the concept behind it.

 

[kwc57]

As a libertarian leaning conservative, I'm not going to reward the republican party with an election win if they're not going to offer me those ideals that drive me to register with them in the first place. I'd just as soon see them lose an election and learn from their fuck up and move back to the roots that made them the party for conservatives.

Giving them the WH now means at LEAST another 8 years of continuing to steer to the left in one way or another. If Obama gets another 4 years, it'll be the same shit as with Romney only it'll be just 4 years with the possibility of maybe a Rand Paul emerging as a contender in 2016.

Right now, the republican party has no intention of being conservative, and they've proven that with who they're propping up this cycle. So I say fuck them.

Paulie, I'm a libertarian leaning conservative too. I understand what you are saying. However, I'd literally vote for Mickey Mouse or Bozo the Clown over Obama. He's that bad and he has to go. Would I prefer a Ron Paul or a Gary Johnson presidency? You damn skippy. But I don't see that happening this election. While I could certainly do a write in on the ballot, will my principled vote for Paul or Johnson instead of the actual candidate on the ballot allow Dear Ruler another 4 years to destroy the country? See, for me personally, that is what I am weighing. Me, I don't want to sit there with a smug look on my face saying I did the "right thing" while I watch our nation die.

Here's the way I see in 1943 if the Germans could have traded Hitler for Goring would there have been change or just moving Hitler out to replace him with a Hitler agenda supporter. I realize that may seem extreme but that's the only way I can compare it. Even though Hitler would be gone his agenda would still be in place and someone who would push it. That's what you would have with obama and the rest of the GOP picks. obama maybe gone but his agenda is still in place.

Well, that's where we disagree. While I certainly am no big fan of Romney or Gingrich and would prefer a different candidate, one of them is who we will have opposing Obama in the general election. As liberal and big government as Mitt and Newt might end up being, I don't think they will hold a candle to Obama's agenda. It might not be what you and I want, but it will be far better than Obama.

 

[007]

Let me throw a question out there to the members of the Republican party and those who may vote for a Republican.
How does a sheep compromise with a wolf about what's for supper?
For those who are in favor of compromising their values with people they have nothing in common with, think about my question and put yourself in the place of the sheep. The wolf will be played by the GOP and supper will be your vote.

So... the wolf is the GOP, and a vote is what's for supper, and the wolf and sheep have to compromise over the vote?

Who are the sheep?

Why is the wolf the GOP?

Why is a vote something to eat?

Your whole analogy is quite bizarre bigreb, no offense. But if you were simply trying to ask about why someone should "compromise," then the answer will be varied. Some will compromise, some won't, and both will have their reasons.

For me, it's like this...

Why is this question so complex to some?
The sheep and the wolf have the same goal in mind. That is to survive. But does the sheep compromise with the wolf?

It's not complex... it's dumb, and vague. I guess my questions were too complex for you, and my response.

Shall we use republicans and democrats, like you should have in the first place, to make it easier?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Paulie, I'm a libertarian leaning conservative too. I understand what you are saying. However, I'd literally vote for Mickey Mouse or Bozo the Clown over Obama. He's that bad and he has to go. Would I prefer a Ron Paul or a Gary Johnson presidency? You damn skippy. But I don't see that happening this election. While I could certainly do a write in on the ballot, will my principled vote for Paul or Johnson instead of the actual candidate on the ballot allow Dear Ruler another 4 years to destroy the country? See, for me personally, that is what I am weighing. Me, I don't want to sit there with a smug look on my face saying I did the "right thing" while I watch our nation die.

Here's the way I see in 1943 if the Germans could have traded Hitler for Goring would there have been change or just moving Hitler out to replace him with a Hitler agenda supporter. I realize that may seem extreme but that's the only way I can compare it. Even though Hitler would be gone his agenda would still be in place and someone who would push it. That's what you would have with obama and the rest of the GOP picks. obama maybe gone but his agenda is still in place.

Well, that's where we disagree. While I certainly am no big fan of Romney or Gingrich and would prefer a different candidate, one of them is who we will have opposing Obama in the general election. As liberal and big government as Mitt and Newt might end up being, I don't think they will hold a candle to Obama's agenda. It might not be what you and I want, but it will be far better than Obama.

Newt comes the closest of the other two that I could vote for, he says all the right things now, but I just can't get past what he use to stand for and what he has said in the past. He looked so comfortable on that couch with Nancy. Maybe he should retire there with her. And Romney hell no. Santorum is just as bad as newt.

 

[007]

Here's the way I see in 1943 if the Germans could have traded Hitler for Goring would there have been change or just moving Hitler out to replace him with a Hitler agenda supporter. I realize that may seem extreme but that's the only way I can compare it. Even though Hitler would be gone his agenda would still be in place and someone who would push it. That's what you would have with obama and the rest of the GOP picks. obama maybe gone but his agenda is still in place.

Well, that's where we disagree. While I certainly am no big fan of Romney or Gingrich and would prefer a different candidate, one of them is who we will have opposing Obama in the general election. As liberal and big government as Mitt and Newt might end up being, I don't think they will hold a candle to Obama's agenda. It might not be what you and I want, but it will be far better than Obama.

Newt comes the closest of the other two that I could vote for, he says all the right things now, but I just can't get past what he use to stand for and what he has said in the past. He looked so comfortable on that couch with Nancy. Maybe he should retire there with her. And Romney hell no. Santorum is just as bad as newt.

And ANY ONE OF THEM IS BETTER THAN obama. What part about that is so hard to understand?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So... the wolf is the GOP, and a vote is what's for supper, and the wolf and sheep have to compromise over the vote?

Who are the sheep?

Why is the wolf the GOP?

Why is a vote something to eat?

Your whole analogy is quite bizarre bigreb, no offense. But if you were simply trying to ask about why someone should "compromise," then the answer will be varied. Some will compromise, some won't, and both will have their reasons.

For me, it's like this...

Why is this question so complex to some?
The sheep and the wolf have the same goal in mind. That is to survive. But does the sheep compromise with the wolf?

It's not complex... it's dumb, and vague. I guess my questions were too complex for you, and my response.

Shall we use republicans and democrats, like you should have in the first place, to make it easier?

I was using symbolism's to make my point. You can substitute the sheep with anything you choose to and likewise the wolf.
It will be very hard to use republican and democrat since there is no difference between the republican front runners and obama.
Thats why I used the sheep and wolf as an example.