Only Liberals Are Pro-Liberty

[NYcarbineer]

The Right is wholeheartedly for 'liberty' as long as the Right gets to define what is or isn't 'liberty'.

Sheer projection.

What 'liberty' do you want that you think I, as a liberal, won't allow you?

 

[Dragon]

It would help discussion if you'd stop making up definitions for words.

When a word has no agreed-upon definition, as "conservative," "liberal," and "libertarian" do not, there is no alternative.

Of course, it would utterly devastate your case.

If I allowed, for example, YOU to dictate what these words mean? Indeed it would.

 

[Cuyo]

The Right is wholeheartedly for 'liberty' as long as the Right gets to define what is or isn't 'liberty'.

Sheer projection.

What 'liberty' do you want that you think I, as a liberal, won't allow you?

"The freedom to not have health insurance!" in 3...2....1....

 

[The T]

And point being what? They're Statists that have voted FOR extensions with measures added to impede liberty.

Or in other words, conservatives. Exactly.

Obama is a Conservative? Really?
Are some of the others in the provided link the same? Son? You have been had before you were...

 

[bripat9643]

The Right is wholeheartedly for 'liberty' as long as the Right gets to define what is or isn't 'liberty'.

So you think "liberty" means whatever you want it to mean?

 

[Dragon]

Conservatives hate liberty.

That's not a premise, it's an observation.

 

[bripat9643]

It's his Doublespeak.

He has wet dreams about the USA becoming an Orwellian society.

Hasn't it already become an Orwellian society? Haven't these libturds been trying to define "liberty" as a government handout and government control of private property?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sheer projection.

What 'liberty' do you want that you think I, as a liberal, won't allow you?

"The freedom to not have health insurance!" in 3...2....1....

I've said before, I'll let anyone choose not to have health insurance as long as they give up the pre-condition insurance requirement in the healthcare bill and as long as they'll waive their right to be treated by any hospital in an emergency if they can't demonstrate an ability to pay.

 

[Dragon]

Obama is a Conservative? Really?

In his rhetoric, no. In the way he governs, yes.

 

[bripat9643]

Conservatives hate liberty.

That's not a premise, it's an observation.

It's horseshit.

 

[bripat9643]

What Statist can resist redefining terms, moving the goal posts, and revising history?

How else can you convince people to hand over their freedom and hard earned income to the government?

 

[bripat9643]

The nationalization of health insurance, actually, not the health-care industry.

You have to be truly naive or dishonest to make a claim like that. If there's only one payer, then it calls the shots. It decides what treatments are available and which are not. It decides how doctors will run their practices. it decides virtually everything. Obamacare is sufficient proof of that.

Everyone except anarchists supports socialism in some parts of the economy. If nothing else, everyone supports a socialized military and law enforcement. A genuine socialist supports all or most of the means of production being publicly owned. Those who don't, aren't socialists.

Everything the government does, by definition, is socialism. That's a very good reason to avoid giving government control of anything that isn't absolutely necessary. Socialism simply doesn't work. Economists have proven that fact beyond all doubt. The empirical evidence is equally convincing.

Pretending those links don't prove you wrong does not make it so.

I'm not pretending anything. They don't. They don't prove anything. And you claiming a blatant falsehood does not turn it into a truth.

The irony is excruciating!

 

[The T]

What Statist can resist redefining terms, moving the goal posts, and revising history?

How else can you convince people to hand over their freedom and hard earned income to the government?

Precisely. And it pains the Statists that the people are aware and onto the scam and more importantly? Resisting...as they should for the sake of thier own individual Liberty.

 

[bripat9643]

The Right is wholeheartedly for 'liberty' as long as the Right gets to define what is or isn't 'liberty'.

Sheer projection.

What 'liberty' do you want that you think I, as a liberal, won't allow you?

How about the liberty to buy health insurance from whomever I want? The liberty to invest my money for retirement? The liberty to choose the schools my children attend?

The list is endless.

 

[The T]

Obama is a Conservative? Really?

In his rhetoric, no. In the way he governs, yes.

^^So we get down to brass tacks. YOU are making excuses for Obama and his WAR of attrition on the Private Sector. How much are you being paid to be here foisting this brand of yaksqueeze that you have been called on?

 

[bripat9643]

It would help discussion if you'd stop making up definitions for words.

When a word has no agreed-upon definition, as "conservative," "liberal," and "libertarian" do not, there is no alternative.

Sure there is: you just look at how the words are used. When we look at the people who call themselves "liberal" what we see are a bunch of anti-American, anti-capitalist socialists.

Of course, it would utterly devastate your case.

If I allowed, for example, YOU to dictate what these words mean? Indeed it would.

Reality dictates the meaning of words. That's why liberals keep trying to change their meaning.

 

[bripat9643]

I've said before, I'll let anyone choose not to have health insurance as long as they give up the pre-condition insurance requirement in the healthcare bill and as long as they'll waive their right to be treated by any hospital in an emergency if they can't demonstrate an ability to pay.

What makes you think anyone on the right wouldn't agree to that?

 

[Dragon]

You have to be truly naive or dishonest to make a claim like that. If there's only one payer, then it calls the shots. It decides what treatments are available and which are not. It decides how doctors will run their practices. it decides virtually everything. Obamacare is sufficient proof of that.

Obamacare is proof only that Democrats have no balls.

If you look at advanced economies, the so-called "first world," you will find that almost all of them have a single-payer system of some kind, but true socialized medicine is rare. Great Britain has it; I can't think of any other examples but there may be some. In Britain, all the hospitals are government run and most doctors work for the National Health Service. France, Germany, Japan, and others have some form of government-run health coverage but most hospitals and clinics are privately owned and operated. Since a distinction may be observed, it's a real distinction.

There's a much stronger case to be made for single-payer coverage than for nationalization of the health-care industry itself.

Everything the government does, by definition, is socialism. That's a very good reason to avoid giving government control of anything that isn't absolutely necessary.

Well, if you start with a reflexive, knee-jerk, irrational aversion to socialism, I suppose that would indeed follow.

 

[Dragon]

Sure there is: you just look at how the words are used. When we look at the people who call themselves "liberal" what we see are a bunch of anti-American, anti-capitalist socialists

LOL you just proved my point.

By the way, can you think of anything more "anti-American" than an advocacy of a return to monarchy? I can't, off the top of my head.

 

[The T]

Sure there is: you just look at how the words are used. When we look at the people who call themselves "liberal" what we see are a bunch of anti-American, anti-capitalist socialists

LOL you just proved my point.

By the way, can you think of anything more "anti-American" than an advocacy of a return to monarchy? I can't, off the top of my head.

His name is barack Hussein Obama...Ruler...

YOU are transparent as Hell.