What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

An Op Ed for the two party supporters

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,064
Reaction score
47,657
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
You show some ability to understand political systems, but then you just turn to jumping into wrong conclusions.

Encouraging though in your coming to understand Trump's flaws

I understood Trumps flaws even before the democrat voters did. Back when democrat voters didn't see Trump as having a snowballs chance in hell of becoming president.

My conclusions are just that. Mine. I welcome being proven wrong. As long as it's actually proof.
I've been a democrat, a republican and was a Libertarian, more recently. But I'm not owned by any party, group or organization at this point. I'm just a conservative now.

"What you do means a whole lot more than anything you've got to say."
His haughty condescension is undeserving of the deference you're giving him.

"Trump's flaws", as far as the democrats are concerned, is that he's a lot closer to what the democrats stood for a mere 30 years ago than they want to admit....A secure border, equitable trade deals, a growing economy, well paying jobs, anti-communist, a decent respect for civil liberties, an America-first attitude toward foreign affairs....In nearly every practical application, he's a sort of Hubert Humphrey democrat.

IOW, he revealed how far that both wings of the uniparty have dragged the Overton window to the left, to the point that REPUBLICANS are to the left of guys like Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, and Daniel Patrick Moynahan.
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,078
Reaction score
1,247
Points
178
You're confusing terms.
American doctors will turn to expensive MRI's etc. when in most cases a cost effective x-ray does all that is needed.

It's for profit's sake of course. No wonder America's HC system is so fukked up.

And no wonder neither political party denies that!

When a doctor bills an insurance company or Medicare/Medicaid, they don't get paid what they bill. Example: A $2500 procedure billed to Blue Cross, will pay them about $150 or less. In fact, Medicare pays better than most insurance companies.
My knee surgery was billed over $200,000. For the surgery, the hospital care and everything involved, BC/BS paid only $1600.
So doctors and hospitals have to overbill and see way more patients than they should, to maintain a decent profit.
Why try to argue the basic principle that US HC is nearly twice as expensive, per capita adjusted, than universal HC systems? And of course rated as poorer in quality.

We would have to had missed the Trump promises of fixing it if we believed you.

Don't get into it with a Canadian. You'll always end up trying to find a way out.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,064
Reaction score
47,657
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays

No one has been able to get the vote for illegals.
Even the amnesty program never gave anyone the vote.

No one is luring anyone here.
If you talk to illegals, they are scared of the death squads.
The US has trained, financed, and arm right wing, military dictatorships in almost all central and south American countries.
So no unions, low pay, danger and risk.

While I appreciate the ironic humor of turning this thread into yet another partisan pissing match, what do you guys think of the two-party system? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Just the way it is? Any opinions on the topic?

LOL, that's what you just did, turn it into a partisan pissing match. I am trying to talk ideology with you and you can't move past party.

Which really gets to the two party system, doesn't it? I'm not a Democrat, so you think I'm a Republican.

That is far more the two party system is used in this country, anyone who doesn't agree with your view is typically labeled as the other party. I regularly take positions against our being in the middle east at all, the size of our military, the war on drugs. I'm pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. You're a long time poster and see all that. But I'm not a Democrat, so you just say partisan Republican. That is how our "two party" system really works, you're a perfect example
Nice try. No, I'm not, at all, obsessed with your party affiliation. That's your deal.

Deflect, deflect, deflect ...
:rolleyes:

You can't possibly be as dumb as you claim you are.

My issue with totalitarians is not that they formed a group, it's that they are ... hello ... totalitarians ...

I would not be thinking it makes sense if totalitarians were to go around agreeing with my arguments, I would be like WTF, what am I saying that resonates with TOTALITARIANS. In your case, almost all your agreement comes from totalitarians. Don't you ever wonder why? You seriously don't?

Except that Totalitarianism does not mean left or right, but just that one group rules and does not allow any other opposition.
But since Totalitarianism implies centralized, and left implies decentralized populism, Totalitarianism is usually a right wing dictatorship of the wealthy elite.

You really can't be a right wing free market capitalist and be a totalitarian, it doesn't make sense.

Totalitarian does go with government control over the economy, yes, it is left

Totally wrong.
Historically all capitalist want to be totalitarians.
Does GM want Ford or Chrysler?
Of course not.
And if not for government protection, GM would use force to destroy Ford and Chrysler.

Historically all dictators have always been right wing.
A "free market" does not mean a "fair market", because fairness requires regulation.
A "free market" always means where the opposition is destroyed by force.
Totalitarianism is always were the protection of the rights of minorities is missing because there is no democratic government regulation.
So then one power group not only takes over the economy, but the government as well.
It is only government regulation that allows plurality.
Historically all dictators have always been right wing.

Staln, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, the Kim family, Ho Chi Minh, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Salvado Allende, Daniel Ortega.....ALL noted hard right wingers! :auiqs.jpg:

YES! Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and the Kim family, were all extremely right wing.
If Stalin were not right wing, then he would not have killed all the communists and socialists.
These are all Stalinists and implemented State Capitalism.

Ho Chi Minh was neither right nor left, and was just trying to liberate Vietnam from the French, right wing, colonial imperialists.
Salvador Allende was extremely popular and democratically elected.
So was Daniel Ortega.
Wow....

AutismTyson.jpg
 

Donald H

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2020
Messages
4,078
Reaction score
1,247
Points
178
You show some ability to understand political systems, but then you just turn to jumping into wrong conclusions.

Encouraging though in your coming to understand Trump's flaws

I understood Trumps flaws even before the democrat voters did. Back when democrat voters didn't see Trump as having a snowballs chance in hell of becoming president.

My conclusions are just that. Mine. I welcome being proven wrong. As long as it's actually proof.
I've been a democrat, a republican and was a Libertarian, more recently. But I'm not owned by any party, group or organization at this point. I'm just a conservative now.

"What you do means a whole lot more than anything you've got to say."
His haughty condescension is undeserving of the deference you're giving him.

"Trump's flaws", as far as the democrats are concerned, is that he's a lot closer to what the democrats stood for a mere 30 years ago than they want to admit....A secure border, equitable trade deals, a growing economy, well paying jobs, anti-communist, a decent respect for civil liberties, an America-first attitude toward foreign affairs....In nearly every practical application, he's a sort of Hubert Humphrey democrat.

IOW, he revealed how far that both wings of the uniparty have dragged the Overton window to the left, to the point that REPUBLICANS are to the left of guys like Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, and Daniel Patrick Moynahan.
You're trying to bargain a position with me now. That's quite a bit better than your anger and rage.

Trump flaws as far as the democrats are concerned.
No, that's not going to be a part of any bargain.

You need to find a better way of walking your mistake back. How many 'fucks' will you care about trying to do that?

Don't try to condemn either of your political parties with me. They've both establishment failures and beyond that it's meaningless.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
68,816
Reaction score
16,609
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania

Rigging elections: I suggest that when the next presidential election comes up, if you really want to see how corrupt the elections really are, try being a delegate for an underdog. Someone that's a real conservative. You'll see for yourself, even at the local RNC headquarters, that who ever the national RNC is supporting, is who you will have to support. Or they're squelch you and anything you have to say.
Been there, done that. I was given fewer chances to speak at the RNC meetings. Was not allowed to wear shirts or hats of the GOP candidate that I supported. THE ONLY way any of the supporters of that candidate even made it to the state convention, was because they were silent about who they actually supported. But once at state, you have to make it known who you're actually supporting because your votes are exposed. Once exposed, you'd be black balled and not allowed to go to the national convention.
The democrats do it the same exact way.
So please just stop with the democrats voting corruption.

You've got to realize that now, "we the people" don't have a say so in shit. Not legislation, not elections. Nothing. THE only thing we can do is argue with each other on political forums about things we can't control. Things that are controlled by party leaders, politicians, lobbyist and special interest.


P.S. I miss the days before Ron Paul when I was apathetic about politics. Before my analytical self decided to get involved with politics. I would've saved myself thousands of hours of matching speeches with voting records. Digging into specifics and details of funding bills and appropriations bills. And I would not have made so damn many enemies over a subject that I had no control over. Politics.

My only political experience was I ran for school board in a town that leaned Republican but was pretty split. I ran as an independent and beat the Republican, but the Democrat won. The Republican party rather than being mad at me reached out and asked me to run in the next election as a Republican. They said I'll never win as an independent. I appreciated it, but I didn't want to run as a Republican. I didn't run in the next election. It was never my intention to elect Democrats
The Republican party rather than being mad at me reached out and asked me to run in the next election as a Republican. They said I'll never win as an independent.

They tried to draw you in so they could co-opt you....This is exactly how the MN GOP is run...The whole party is even more squishy and disingenuous than Romney

I think there's certainly truth in that. But I think their bigger fear was I would keep running and splitting the vote and Democrats would keep winning.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
68,816
Reaction score
16,609
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania

No one has been able to get the vote for illegals.
Even the amnesty program never gave anyone the vote.

No one is luring anyone here.
If you talk to illegals, they are scared of the death squads.
The US has trained, financed, and arm right wing, military dictatorships in almost all central and south American countries.
So no unions, low pay, danger and risk.

While I appreciate the ironic humor of turning this thread into yet another partisan pissing match, what do you guys think of the two-party system? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Just the way it is? Any opinions on the topic?

LOL, that's what you just did, turn it into a partisan pissing match. I am trying to talk ideology with you and you can't move past party.

Which really gets to the two party system, doesn't it? I'm not a Democrat, so you think I'm a Republican.

That is far more the two party system is used in this country, anyone who doesn't agree with your view is typically labeled as the other party. I regularly take positions against our being in the middle east at all, the size of our military, the war on drugs. I'm pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. You're a long time poster and see all that. But I'm not a Democrat, so you just say partisan Republican. That is how our "two party" system really works, you're a perfect example
Nice try. No, I'm not, at all, obsessed with your party affiliation. That's your deal.

Deflect, deflect, deflect ...
:rolleyes:

You can't possibly be as dumb as you claim you are.

My issue with totalitarians is not that they formed a group, it's that they are ... hello ... totalitarians ...

I would not be thinking it makes sense if totalitarians were to go around agreeing with my arguments, I would be like WTF, what am I saying that resonates with TOTALITARIANS. In your case, almost all your agreement comes from totalitarians. Don't you ever wonder why? You seriously don't?

Except that Totalitarianism does not mean left or right, but just that one group rules and does not allow any other opposition.
But since Totalitarianism implies centralized, and left implies decentralized populism, Totalitarianism is usually a right wing dictatorship of the wealthy elite.

You really can't be a right wing free market capitalist and be a totalitarian, it doesn't make sense.

Totalitarian does go with government control over the economy, yes, it is left

Totally wrong.
Historically all capitalist want to be totalitarians.
Does GM want Ford or Chrysler?
Of course not.
And if not for government protection, GM would use force to destroy Ford and Chrysler.

Historically all dictators have always been right wing.
A "free market" does not mean a "fair market", because fairness requires regulation.
A "free market" always means where the opposition is destroyed by force.
Totalitarianism is always were the protection of the rights of minorities is missing because there is no democratic government regulation.
So then one power group not only takes over the economy, but the government as well.
It is only government regulation that allows plurality.

First you believe in free markets, then you're a totalitarian!

LOL. You're a tool for the left.

Crony Capitalism isn't a form of Capitalism, it's a form of socialism
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,064
Reaction score
47,657
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
You show some ability to understand political systems, but then you just turn to jumping into wrong conclusions.

Encouraging though in your coming to understand Trump's flaws

I understood Trumps flaws even before the democrat voters did. Back when democrat voters didn't see Trump as having a snowballs chance in hell of becoming president.

My conclusions are just that. Mine. I welcome being proven wrong. As long as it's actually proof.
I've been a democrat, a republican and was a Libertarian, more recently. But I'm not owned by any party, group or organization at this point. I'm just a conservative now.

"What you do means a whole lot more than anything you've got to say."
His haughty condescension is undeserving of the deference you're giving him.

"Trump's flaws", as far as the democrats are concerned, is that he's a lot closer to what the democrats stood for a mere 30 years ago than they want to admit....A secure border, equitable trade deals, a growing economy, well paying jobs, anti-communist, a decent respect for civil liberties, an America-first attitude toward foreign affairs....In nearly every practical application, he's a sort of Hubert Humphrey democrat.

IOW, he revealed how far that both wings of the uniparty have dragged the Overton window to the left, to the point that REPUBLICANS are to the left of guys like Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, and Daniel Patrick Moynahan.
You're trying to bargain a position with me now. That's quite a bit better than your anger and rage.

Trump flaws as far as the democrats are concerned.
No, that's not going to be a part of any bargain.

You need to find a better way of walking your mistake back. How many 'fucks' will you care about trying to do that?

Don't try to condemn either of your political parties with me. They've both establishment failures and beyond that it's meaningless.
I wasn't addressing you....Now get back to shoving that cactus up you ass, condescending asshole.
 

dblack

Diamond Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
41,375
Reaction score
7,055
Points
1,830
No, it is not "winner take all" that I am referring to, although I agree that is also something bad that a parliamentary system could fix.
What I am saying is that by parties being rigged and before the final election, then can prevent the most popular candidates from ever being heard from.

But the reason the most popular candidates don't survive the primaries is because neither party has incentive to seek consensus. ie they don't need popular candidates to win. All they need is slightly more votes than the other party. All they need is a candidate who's not quite as horrible as the other party's nominee. And that's because they have a gun to our heads. They've set up the system to block third parties and most people fall for the lesser-of-two-evils lie.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
68,816
Reaction score
16,609
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
But that is because I am a far left, progressive, liberal, and the democratic party has been pro war, pro banks, pro private health insurance, etc.

Far left fascists have always been pro war, pro banks, pro private big bidness, etc....Just as long as they play ball with The State...The neoliberal "left" and neocon "right" are in the same far left fascist team.

Right wing by definition means Laissez fair capitalism, with unregulated banks, and corporations, and the wealthy elite in control of everything. Left is decentralized and popular, while right is centralized by the wealthy.

Then you don't know the definition of laissez-faire.

What we have now is the Big Corporate elite supporting the hard left....It is you who are in favor of total central control and the wealthy elite (Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Soros, Delta, Coca-Cola, Disney) in charge of damn near everything.

I suggest to you a crash course in self-awareness, dude.


Think about what you are claiming?
If the people were in control, then we would have public health care.
Who does not want public health care?
It is the big corporations that do not want public health care.
So it is the wealthy elite who are in charge.
By definition that is the right wing, but if you want to call them left wing, it does not matter to me.
You're are on some serious drugs if you really believe that BigCorp doesn't want socialized medical care.....That would remove the biggest fringie that their employees have come to expect from their payroll.

Talk about not thinking about what you are claiming.

Fringe benefits like employer provided health insurance does not help the company in any way.
It costs a fortune, and makes products too expensive to be able to export.
You could easily attract the better employees with the cash instead.
Employer health insurance costs employers over $1200/per month, per employee.
That is huge.
Public health care has shown in all countries, to cost less than half as much, and since is paid through taxes, is more fair as well.

Government has fucked up our medical system and driven medical costs to ridiculous levels. It's insane to say let's let the cause of the problem run it.

We need to get government OUT of medical care, not expand it. They are inept and greedy.

Why would you ever say a problem is so bad that the solution is to turn it over to people who are guaranteed to make it worse?
Government health care systems in the world are all rated as superior to America's.

You Americans just can't continue to make up your shit!

Bull shit, the best medical insurance is available here. I have had more medical problems in the last seven months than you can imagine. I outlived my father now by eight years, the causes are genetic. Your claim I want to be somewhere else is just stupid.

The only standard we're not the best in is access to a doctor. I care about how good the doctor is, and that is why you want to be here
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,064
Reaction score
47,657
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays

No one has been able to get the vote for illegals.
Even the amnesty program never gave anyone the vote.

No one is luring anyone here.
If you talk to illegals, they are scared of the death squads.
The US has trained, financed, and arm right wing, military dictatorships in almost all central and south American countries.
So no unions, low pay, danger and risk.

While I appreciate the ironic humor of turning this thread into yet another partisan pissing match, what do you guys think of the two-party system? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Just the way it is? Any opinions on the topic?

LOL, that's what you just did, turn it into a partisan pissing match. I am trying to talk ideology with you and you can't move past party.

Which really gets to the two party system, doesn't it? I'm not a Democrat, so you think I'm a Republican.

That is far more the two party system is used in this country, anyone who doesn't agree with your view is typically labeled as the other party. I regularly take positions against our being in the middle east at all, the size of our military, the war on drugs. I'm pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. You're a long time poster and see all that. But I'm not a Democrat, so you just say partisan Republican. That is how our "two party" system really works, you're a perfect example
Nice try. No, I'm not, at all, obsessed with your party affiliation. That's your deal.

Deflect, deflect, deflect ...
:rolleyes:

You can't possibly be as dumb as you claim you are.

My issue with totalitarians is not that they formed a group, it's that they are ... hello ... totalitarians ...

I would not be thinking it makes sense if totalitarians were to go around agreeing with my arguments, I would be like WTF, what am I saying that resonates with TOTALITARIANS. In your case, almost all your agreement comes from totalitarians. Don't you ever wonder why? You seriously don't?

Except that Totalitarianism does not mean left or right, but just that one group rules and does not allow any other opposition.
But since Totalitarianism implies centralized, and left implies decentralized populism, Totalitarianism is usually a right wing dictatorship of the wealthy elite.

You really can't be a right wing free market capitalist and be a totalitarian, it doesn't make sense.

Totalitarian does go with government control over the economy, yes, it is left

Totally wrong.
Historically all capitalist want to be totalitarians.
Does GM want Ford or Chrysler?
Of course not.
And if not for government protection, GM would use force to destroy Ford and Chrysler.

Historically all dictators have always been right wing.
A "free market" does not mean a "fair market", because fairness requires regulation.
A "free market" always means where the opposition is destroyed by force.
Totalitarianism is always were the protection of the rights of minorities is missing because there is no democratic government regulation.
So then one power group not only takes over the economy, but the government as well.
It is only government regulation that allows plurality.

First you believe in free markets, then you're a totalitarian!

LOL. You're a tool for the left.

Crony Capitalism isn't a form of Capitalism, it's a form of socialism
Easily the most apropos avatar on the forum.

maxresdefault.jpg
 
  • Funny
Reactions: kaz

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
68,816
Reaction score
16,609
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania

Fringe benefits like employer provided health insurance does not help the company in any way.
It costs a fortune, and makes products too expensive to be able to export.
You could easily attract the better employees with the cash instead.
Employer health insurance costs employers over $1200/per month, per employee.
That is huge.
Public health care has shown in all countries, to cost less than half as much, and since is paid through taxes, is more fair as well.
Fringe benefits like employer provided health insurance does not help the company in any way.
It costs a fortune, and makes products too expensive to be able to export.


Well, DUUUUH!... Why the hell did you think that I said that they would want to offload that burden onto the taxpayer?

Public health care has shown in all countries, to cost less than half as much, and since is paid through taxes, is more fair as well.

That's because it's rationed by central planners....Your claim that it is "fairer" is non sequitur and irrelevant to anything.

No country in the world has a problem of public health care being "rationed".
If a person breaks a leg, the public hospital is going to turn them away because they already had their quota of broken legs?
The doctors decide if procedures are necessary or not if you have a public health care system.
It is private health insurance that denies medical procedures, not public health care.

No one in the US is denied healthcare. Including if you are here illegally
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,064
Reaction score
47,657
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
I would have been zero for seven if the Libertarian Party hadn't stopped nominating actual libertarians.
It's been infiltrated by lefties and has become a sept of the Dem party to siphon votes from the dog-shit GOP.
Excuses for selling out and supporting Trump. Sad.

We're not like you. We don't support radical totalitarian leftists.

Yeah, yeah, I know. You aren't a Democrat even though you spend almost all your time on the site parroting their talking points.

Trump's policies weren't very good and the ones that were didn't go far enough. But he did one thing with radical leftist fascism and racism and stealing elections that you keep making excuses for. Trump fought back.

At this point the best thing we can do for our liberty is fight the left. And you still struggle to figure out how you are different from them. Leftists on the board don't know how you're different from them either

So you don't like the democratic party line.
Fine, I don't either.
But that is because I am a far left, progressive, liberal, and the democratic party has been
Left, progressive, and liberal means anti-war, regulating banks, regulating corporations, and public financed joint social obligations like health care, education, transportation, etc.

You used "totalitarian" and "fascist", but those terms only refer to right wing policies of an oligarchy. They do not apply to left wing political beliefs. Left wing means low level, local, populist government that emphasizes individual rights and liberties.
Right wing by definition means Laissez fair capitalism, with unregulated banks, and corporations, and the wealthy elite in control of everything. Left is decentralized and popular, while right is centralized by the wealthy.
But that is because I am a far left, progressive, liberal, and the democratic party has been pro war, pro banks, pro private health insurance, etc.

Far left fascists have always been pro war, pro banks, pro private big bidness, etc....Just as long as they play ball with The State...The neoliberal "left" and neocon "right" are in the same far left fascist team.

Right wing by definition means Laissez fair capitalism, with unregulated banks, and corporations, and the wealthy elite in control of everything. Left is decentralized and popular, while right is centralized by the wealthy.

Then you don't know the definition of laissez-faire.

What we have now is the Big Corporate elite supporting the hard left....It is you who are in favor of total central control and the wealthy elite (Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Soros, Delta, Coca-Cola, Disney) in charge of damn near everything.

I suggest to you a crash course in self-awareness, dude.


Think about what you are claiming?
If the people were in control, then we would have public health care.
Who does not want public health care?
It is the big corporations that do not want public health care.
So it is the wealthy elite who are in charge.
By definition that is the right wing, but if you want to call them left wing, it does not matter to me.
You're are on some serious drugs if you really believe that BigCorp doesn't want socialized medical care.....That would remove the biggest fringie that their employees have come to expect from their payroll.

Talk about not thinking about what you are claiming.

Fringe benefits like employer provided health insurance does not help the company in any way.
It costs a fortune, and makes products too expensive to be able to export.
You could easily attract the better employees with the cash instead.
Employer health insurance costs employers over $1200/per month, per employee.
That is huge.
Public health care has shown in all countries, to cost less than half as much, and since is paid through taxes, is more fair as well.
Fringe benefits like employer provided health insurance does not help the company in any way.
It costs a fortune, and makes products too expensive to be able to export.


Well, DUUUUH!... Why the hell did you think that I said that they would want to offload that burden onto the taxpayer?

Public health care has shown in all countries, to cost less than half as much, and since is paid through taxes, is more fair as well.

That's because it's rationed by central planners....Your claim that it is "fairer" is non sequitur and irrelevant to anything.

No country in the world has a problem of public health care being "rationed".
If a person breaks a leg, the public hospital is going to turn them away because they already had their quota of broken legs?
The doctors decide if procedures are necessary or not if you have a public health care system.
It is private health insurance that denies medical procedures, not public health care.
No country in the world has a problem of public health care being "rationed".

Tell that to the thousands that come south from Canada to get elective and non-critical surgeries on demand.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: kaz

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
68,816
Reaction score
16,609
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania

Fringe benefits like employer provided health insurance does not help the company in any way.
It costs a fortune, and makes products too expensive to be able to export.
You could easily attract the better employees with the cash instead.
Employer health insurance costs employers over $1200/per month, per employee.
That is huge.
Public health care has shown in all countries, to cost less than half as much, and since is paid through taxes, is more fair as well.
whoa cogent, and here I am leaving. And yes, some of us preferred just ending the tax deductions to employers for health care, and raising the revenue to just provide each person a tax credit to purchase HC or insurance or a combination with some form of old age/catastrophic care in traditional public health.
End tax deductions for employers????....NO!...Extend the tax deduction to freelance 1099 contractors, who get no such deduction.

And yo can forget about catistrophic-only coverage....Your Boiking made that coverage illegal, for all intents and purposes.
But what about America's HC system being rated as the poorest in the modern industrialized world?

And for some proof of it's failure, Trump said he was going to fix it.

But sadly the only fix from Trump would have been a betrayal of his big money contributors.

Maybe next time sweetcheeks!

Anyone who thinks the US medical system is the poorest in the industrial world is a died in the wool Marxist.

We have access to by far the best medical treatment.

But apparently you'd rather just have access to any doctor rather than caring how good they are or what they have access to since you're claiming that.

All hail Cuba! You have access to a doctor, the only thing you care about!
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
68,816
Reaction score
16,609
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania

Totally wrong.
Historically all capitalist want to be totalitarians.
Does GM want Ford or Chrysler?
Of course not.
And if not for government protection, GM would use force to destroy Ford and Chrysler.

Historically all dictators have always been right wing.
A "free market" does not mean a "fair market", because fairness requires regulation.
A "free market" always means where the opposition is destroyed by force.
Totalitarianism is always were the protection of the rights of minorities is missing because there is no democratic government regulation.
So then one power group not only takes over the economy, but the government as well.
It is only government regulation that allows plurality.
Historically all dictators have always been right wing.

Staln, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, the Kim family, Ho Chi Minh, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Salvado Allende, Daniel Ortega.....ALL noted hard right wingers! :auiqs.jpg:

YES! Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and the Kim family, were all extremely right wing.
If Stalin were not right wing, then he would not have killed all the communists and socialists.
These are all Stalinists and implemented State Capitalism.

Ho Chi Minh was neither right nor left, and was just trying to liberate Vietnam from the French, right wing, colonial imperialists.
Salvador Allende was extremely popular and democratically elected.
So was Daniel Ortega.


If Mao said free markets once he said it a million times!

What a dumb ass. Those fascists were all left wing totalitarians. Your view that dictators were free market capitalists is just stupid
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
68,816
Reaction score
16,609
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
I would have been zero for seven if the Libertarian Party hadn't stopped nominating actual libertarians.
It's been infiltrated by lefties and has become a sept of the Dem party to siphon votes from the dog-shit GOP.
Excuses for selling out and supporting Trump. Sad.

We're not like you. We don't support radical totalitarian leftists.

Yeah, yeah, I know. You aren't a Democrat even though you spend almost all your time on the site parroting their talking points.

Trump's policies weren't very good and the ones that were didn't go far enough. But he did one thing with radical leftist fascism and racism and stealing elections that you keep making excuses for. Trump fought back.

At this point the best thing we can do for our liberty is fight the left. And you still struggle to figure out how you are different from them. Leftists on the board don't know how you're different from them either

So you don't like the democratic party line.
Fine, I don't either.
But that is because I am a far left, progressive, liberal, and the democratic party has been
Left, progressive, and liberal means anti-war, regulating banks, regulating corporations, and public financed joint social obligations like health care, education, transportation, etc.

You used "totalitarian" and "fascist", but those terms only refer to right wing policies of an oligarchy. They do not apply to left wing political beliefs. Left wing means low level, local, populist government that emphasizes individual rights and liberties.
Right wing by definition means Laissez fair capitalism, with unregulated banks, and corporations, and the wealthy elite in control of everything. Left is decentralized and popular, while right is centralized by the wealthy.
But that is because I am a far left, progressive, liberal, and the democratic party has been pro war, pro banks, pro private health insurance, etc.

Far left fascists have always been pro war, pro banks, pro private big bidness, etc....Just as long as they play ball with The State...The neoliberal "left" and neocon "right" are in the same far left fascist team.

Right wing by definition means Laissez fair capitalism, with unregulated banks, and corporations, and the wealthy elite in control of everything. Left is decentralized and popular, while right is centralized by the wealthy.

Then you don't know the definition of laissez-faire.

What we have now is the Big Corporate elite supporting the hard left....It is you who are in favor of total central control and the wealthy elite (Bezos, Gates, Buffett, Soros, Delta, Coca-Cola, Disney) in charge of damn near everything.

I suggest to you a crash course in self-awareness, dude.


Think about what you are claiming?
If the people were in control, then we would have public health care.
Who does not want public health care?
It is the big corporations that do not want public health care.
So it is the wealthy elite who are in charge.
By definition that is the right wing, but if you want to call them left wing, it does not matter to me.
You're are on some serious drugs if you really believe that BigCorp doesn't want socialized medical care.....That would remove the biggest fringie that their employees have come to expect from their payroll.

Talk about not thinking about what you are claiming.

Fringe benefits like employer provided health insurance does not help the company in any way.
It costs a fortune, and makes products too expensive to be able to export.
You could easily attract the better employees with the cash instead.
Employer health insurance costs employers over $1200/per month, per employee.
That is huge.
Public health care has shown in all countries, to cost less than half as much, and since is paid through taxes, is more fair as well.
Fringe benefits like employer provided health insurance does not help the company in any way.
It costs a fortune, and makes products too expensive to be able to export.


Well, DUUUUH!... Why the hell did you think that I said that they would want to offload that burden onto the taxpayer?

Public health care has shown in all countries, to cost less than half as much, and since is paid through taxes, is more fair as well.

That's because it's rationed by central planners....Your claim that it is "fairer" is non sequitur and irrelevant to anything.

No country in the world has a problem of public health care being "rationed".
If a person breaks a leg, the public hospital is going to turn them away because they already had their quota of broken legs?
The doctors decide if procedures are necessary or not if you have a public health care system.
It is private health insurance that denies medical procedures, not public health care.
No country in the world has a problem of public health care being "rationed".

Tell that to the thousands that come south from Canada to get elective and non-critical surgeries on demand.

Yep. It's a problem with both Canada and Britain that people die of cancer before they get treatment. No one with money does, they come to the United States for treatment. The medical centers on our northern borders are full of Canadians
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,064
Reaction score
47,657
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays

Fringe benefits like employer provided health insurance does not help the company in any way.
It costs a fortune, and makes products too expensive to be able to export.
You could easily attract the better employees with the cash instead.
Employer health insurance costs employers over $1200/per month, per employee.
That is huge.
Public health care has shown in all countries, to cost less than half as much, and since is paid through taxes, is more fair as well.
whoa cogent, and here I am leaving. And yes, some of us preferred just ending the tax deductions to employers for health care, and raising the revenue to just provide each person a tax credit to purchase HC or insurance or a combination with some form of old age/catastrophic care in traditional public health.
End tax deductions for employers????....NO!...Extend the tax deduction to freelance 1099 contractors, who get no such deduction.

And yo can forget about catistrophic-only coverage....Your Boiking made that coverage illegal, for all intents and purposes.
But what about America's HC system being rated as the poorest in the modern industrialized world?

And for some proof of it's failure, Trump said he was going to fix it.

But sadly the only fix from Trump would have been a betrayal of his big money contributors.

Maybe next time sweetcheeks!

Anyone who thinks the US medical system is the poorest in the industrial world is a died in the wool Marxist.

We have access to by far the best medical treatment.

But apparently you'd rather just have access to any doctor rather than caring how good they are or what they have access to since you're claiming that.

All hail Cuba! You have access to a doctor, the only thing you care about!
But long lines mean that there's an abundance, and people are lining up to get some quality merch!

BreadChange.jpg
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
68,816
Reaction score
16,609
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania

No one has been able to get the vote for illegals.
Even the amnesty program never gave anyone the vote.

No one is luring anyone here.
If you talk to illegals, they are scared of the death squads.
The US has trained, financed, and arm right wing, military dictatorships in almost all central and south American countries.
So no unions, low pay, danger and risk.

While I appreciate the ironic humor of turning this thread into yet another partisan pissing match, what do you guys think of the two-party system? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Just the way it is? Any opinions on the topic?

LOL, that's what you just did, turn it into a partisan pissing match. I am trying to talk ideology with you and you can't move past party.

Which really gets to the two party system, doesn't it? I'm not a Democrat, so you think I'm a Republican.

That is far more the two party system is used in this country, anyone who doesn't agree with your view is typically labeled as the other party. I regularly take positions against our being in the middle east at all, the size of our military, the war on drugs. I'm pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. You're a long time poster and see all that. But I'm not a Democrat, so you just say partisan Republican. That is how our "two party" system really works, you're a perfect example
Nice try. No, I'm not, at all, obsessed with your party affiliation. That's your deal.

Deflect, deflect, deflect ...
:rolleyes:

You can't possibly be as dumb as you claim you are.

My issue with totalitarians is not that they formed a group, it's that they are ... hello ... totalitarians ...

I would not be thinking it makes sense if totalitarians were to go around agreeing with my arguments, I would be like WTF, what am I saying that resonates with TOTALITARIANS. In your case, almost all your agreement comes from totalitarians. Don't you ever wonder why? You seriously don't?

Except that Totalitarianism does not mean left or right, but just that one group rules and does not allow any other opposition.
But since Totalitarianism implies centralized, and left implies decentralized populism, Totalitarianism is usually a right wing dictatorship of the wealthy elite.

You really can't be a right wing free market capitalist and be a totalitarian, it doesn't make sense.

Totalitarian does go with government control over the economy, yes, it is left

Totally wrong.
Historically all capitalist want to be totalitarians.
Does GM want Ford or Chrysler?
Of course not.
And if not for government protection, GM would use force to destroy Ford and Chrysler.

Historically all dictators have always been right wing.
A "free market" does not mean a "fair market", because fairness requires regulation.
A "free market" always means where the opposition is destroyed by force.
Totalitarianism is always were the protection of the rights of minorities is missing because there is no democratic government regulation.
So then one power group not only takes over the economy, but the government as well.
It is only government regulation that allows plurality.
Historically all dictators have always been right wing.

Staln, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, the Kim family, Ho Chi Minh, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Salvado Allende, Daniel Ortega.....ALL noted hard right wingers! :auiqs.jpg:

YES! Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and the Kim family, were all extremely right wing.
If Stalin were not right wing, then he would not have killed all the communists and socialists.
These are all Stalinists and implemented State Capitalism.

Ho Chi Minh was neither right nor left, and was just trying to liberate Vietnam from the French, right wing, colonial imperialists.
Salvador Allende was extremely popular and democratically elected.
So was Daniel Ortega.
Ho Chi Minh won his war and then had a city named after him.
It's always going to be a long and hard fight for a country's people to overcome US imperialism.

I'm betting on young leader Kim now that he has the nuclear deterrent to US aggression.

Ho Chi Minh intentionally decided to be a Russian imperialist, liar
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,064
Reaction score
47,657
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays

No one has been able to get the vote for illegals.
Even the amnesty program never gave anyone the vote.

No one is luring anyone here.
If you talk to illegals, they are scared of the death squads.
The US has trained, financed, and arm right wing, military dictatorships in almost all central and south American countries.
So no unions, low pay, danger and risk.

While I appreciate the ironic humor of turning this thread into yet another partisan pissing match, what do you guys think of the two-party system? Is it a good thing? A bad thing? Just the way it is? Any opinions on the topic?

LOL, that's what you just did, turn it into a partisan pissing match. I am trying to talk ideology with you and you can't move past party.

Which really gets to the two party system, doesn't it? I'm not a Democrat, so you think I'm a Republican.

That is far more the two party system is used in this country, anyone who doesn't agree with your view is typically labeled as the other party. I regularly take positions against our being in the middle east at all, the size of our military, the war on drugs. I'm pro-abortion and anti-death penalty. You're a long time poster and see all that. But I'm not a Democrat, so you just say partisan Republican. That is how our "two party" system really works, you're a perfect example
Nice try. No, I'm not, at all, obsessed with your party affiliation. That's your deal.

Deflect, deflect, deflect ...
:rolleyes:

You can't possibly be as dumb as you claim you are.

My issue with totalitarians is not that they formed a group, it's that they are ... hello ... totalitarians ...

I would not be thinking it makes sense if totalitarians were to go around agreeing with my arguments, I would be like WTF, what am I saying that resonates with TOTALITARIANS. In your case, almost all your agreement comes from totalitarians. Don't you ever wonder why? You seriously don't?

Except that Totalitarianism does not mean left or right, but just that one group rules and does not allow any other opposition.
But since Totalitarianism implies centralized, and left implies decentralized populism, Totalitarianism is usually a right wing dictatorship of the wealthy elite.

You really can't be a right wing free market capitalist and be a totalitarian, it doesn't make sense.

Totalitarian does go with government control over the economy, yes, it is left

Totally wrong.
Historically all capitalist want to be totalitarians.
Does GM want Ford or Chrysler?
Of course not.
And if not for government protection, GM would use force to destroy Ford and Chrysler.

Historically all dictators have always been right wing.
A "free market" does not mean a "fair market", because fairness requires regulation.
A "free market" always means where the opposition is destroyed by force.
Totalitarianism is always were the protection of the rights of minorities is missing because there is no democratic government regulation.
So then one power group not only takes over the economy, but the government as well.
It is only government regulation that allows plurality.
Historically all dictators have always been right wing.

Staln, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, the Kim family, Ho Chi Minh, Nicolae Ceaușescu, Salvado Allende, Daniel Ortega.....ALL noted hard right wingers! :auiqs.jpg:

YES! Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and the Kim family, were all extremely right wing.
If Stalin were not right wing, then he would not have killed all the communists and socialists.
These are all Stalinists and implemented State Capitalism.

Ho Chi Minh was neither right nor left, and was just trying to liberate Vietnam from the French, right wing, colonial imperialists.
Salvador Allende was extremely popular and democratically elected.
So was Daniel Ortega.
Ho Chi Minh won his war and then had a city named after him.
It's always going to be a long and hard fight for a country's people to overcome US imperialism.

I'm betting on young leader Kim now that he has the nuclear deterrent to US aggression.

Ho Chi Minh intentionally decided to be a Russian imperialist, liar
I'm starting to wonder if that jackwagon isn't Bill Clinton. :auiqs.jpg:
 
  • Funny
Reactions: kaz

Death Angel

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
39,217
Reaction score
22,937
Points
1,915
The two party, other-of-two-evils conceit is killing us. Don't fall for it.
What would you replace it with? Americans have 2 visions for our future. I DO NOT support the Demonrat Party on any level. Therefore I vote for the best Republican
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
76,064
Reaction score
47,657
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
What would you replace it with? Americans have 2 visions for our future. I DO NOT support the Demonrat Party on any level. Therefore I vote for the best Republican
Probably because the "best republican" most often ends up being a controlled opposition asshole like McTurtle, Ryan, Romney, etcetera.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$201.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top