The Sentimental Nature of the Liberal Socialist

[Bern80]

Thats nice.

Irrelevant to the point, but what else is new. You can only support your point by pointing to a comparison between the US and other countries, not by stating facts only about the US.

I think the point is that in order for your argument to work (socialized medicine will lead to a healthier nation overall) some assumptions have to be made about our nations poor and uninsures. I addressed this somewhat in my last post to you (feel free to get to that when you'd like). the question is are the assumptions accurate. Many people like myself and RSR are simply poiting out the realities of what constitute the poor and uninsured for our country.

And I still don't buy the argument that we have to compare ourselves to other countries. We can't really do that as far as I can tell. As I alluded to before if the breakdown was like 50-50 insured to uninsured then sure you could make a very legitamate case that socialized medicine would help. But you can't assume that because that happened in Europe its' going to happen here too, because you have to compare similar variables. For instance did France have 15% uninsured like we do? I have no idea.

 

[Larkinn]

It shows we do have the worlds richest poor - as I said before

No, no it doesn't. Basic logic.

 

[red states rule]

No, no it doesn't. Basic logic.

Being a liberal you do not understand basic logic - only liberal logic

Which makes a figure eight look like a striaght line

 

[red states rule]

I think the point is that in order for your argument to work (socialized medicine will lead to a healthier nation overall) some assumptions have to be made about our nations poor and uninsures. I addressed this somewhat in my last post to you (feel free to get to that when you'd like). the question is are the assumptions accurate. Many people like myself and RSR are simply poiting out the realities of what constitute the poor and uninsured for our country.

And I still don't buy the argument that we have to compare ourselves to other countries. We can't really do that as far as I can tell. As I alluded to before if the breakdown was like 50-50 insured to uninsured then sure you could make a very legitamate case that socialized medicine would help. But you can't assume that because that happened in Europe its' going to happen here too, because you have to compare similar variables. For instance did France have 15% uninsured like we do? I have no idea.

Libs whine about poverty in America. If you want ot see real poverty - go to Viet Nam and other countries

We have the richest poor in the world. Being poor in America is not as bad as libs would have us believe

 

[Larkinn]

Being a liberal you do not understand basic logic - only liberal logic

Which makes a figure eight look like a striaght line

Know what ∃ means in logic rsr? Somehow I doubt it.

Actually I know you don't. You don't even know where the flaw in your reasoning before is.

We have the richest poor in the world. Being poor in America is not as bad as libs would have us believe

Yay, more lies.

 

[red states rule]

Know what ∃ means in logic rsr? Somehow I doubt it.

Actually I know you don't. You don't even know where the flaw in your reasoning before is.



Yay, more lies.

I can a jackass liberal to the facts but I can't make them accept them

 

[JeffWartman]

I was responding to post 238 by mattskramer

Either way, you have shown you have a complete lack of abilities in simple arithmetic.

 

[JeffWartman]

I can a jackass liberal to the facts but I can't make them accept them

Why won't you answer his question?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

RSR. Please ANSWER the question, nicely. Thanks

Why won't you answer his question?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont think socialized medicine will work, but all options are on the table, maybe we can create a hybrid that works for us. I hope we can work together and atleast try some things, until we find a model that works for us. Illness cares not for our politics, it will kill us all

 

[red states rule]

I dont think socialized medicine will work, but all options are on the table, maybe we can create a hybrid that works for us. I hope we can work together and atleast try some things, until we find a model that works for us. Illness cares not for our politics, it will kill us all

I have

Libs whine about poverty in Amercia. What do libs consider living in poverty. I listed facts from the Census Bureau, the lifestyles of the poor in Amercia

It is not that bad. Those are facts. If you want to see people in real poverty - look in another country



The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Lmao...anything is a possibility. That I can't prove otherwise to every unsubstantiated allegation means nothing. You made the allegation, YOU prove it. Otherwise I don't need to treat the possibility of anything more than the already half-disproven assertions of a message board Republican.

Do you deny that those various groups of people exist? And btw, why should we as a nation pay for the health care of those who make poor life decisions? Why should I have to pay for your health care because you would rather spend your money on buying a new big screen?

Thats nice.
We are talking about the people who don't have healthcare. You are trying to say that of the 44 million who have no healthcare, 12 million are illegal immigrants. This is an assumption, and 99% a LIE. Responding to me calling you out by whining and bitching about the effect illegals have on the wages is merely a poor attempt to change the conversation

Illegals ARE included in their surveys (although that doesn't mean all of them are actually counted). According to the Census Bureau:

"We're going out of our way to encourage everyone," he emphasized.
The Bureau favors counting illegal immigrants, he added, because "nothing in the Constitution says they should not be counted."

In an attempt to justify the Bureau's position, the media relations director said immigrant children put a "strain on the school system whether the kids are legal or illegal."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17838

I know. God help us from those who want to stop genocide in Darfur, human rights abuses in Myanmar, and torture around the globe. But going into corporate law and charging $200 an hour because the state makes it hard as hell to get a divorce...well thats ok.

Being young and idealistic you can only relate to the sentimental side of the liberal socialist agenda.

The war on poverty was something Johnson did...as poverty has increased, these programs have decreased. No, you don't give a shit about the poor. People don't want them dying on the streets, but besides that they are ok if they are marginilized and pushed to the bounderies of society. The war on poverty is dead, and Clinton helped give it the death knell with the welfare reform.

The War on Poverty, started by Johnson, decades later and after spending TRILLIONS, was a total failure. The 1996 Welfare Reform was actually the most successful anti-poverty reform because it did away with a lot of the liberal "entitlement" attitude which only causes a never-ending cycle of dependency and poverty. It also proved that the poor were largely not working not because there were no jobs but because it was much easier to sit on their butts and collect a check. Wake up and smell reality.

Do you get the difference between encouraging and forcing?

With liberals, encouragement always seems to wind up with enforcement.

What the hell are you talking about?

I think liberals pick and choose which facts fit or don't fit their agenda.

Clearly its one of the great reference sites of our day. I have numerous friends who are programmers, I can throw up a site tomorrow that says ScreamingEagle has a known propensity for raping little boys, put up names, pictures from the internet, etc, etc.

Really...challenge yourself a bit. Find sources based on their reputability, not whether they agree with you or not.

So, because this excellent site obviously irritates you (for good reason)… you just throw a wet blanket of denial onto the entire site and start jabbing at people while clearly ignoring the facts staring right at you. What a putz.

 

[Larkinn]

Do you deny that those various groups of people exist? And btw, why should we as a nation pay for the health care of those who make poor life decisions? Why should I have to pay for your health care because you would rather spend your money on buying a new big screen?

As i said before, stupidity does not deserve the death sentence.

Illegals ARE included in their surveys (although that doesn't mean all of them are actually counted). According to the Census Bureau:

Who gives a ****? The issue is whether they are in the 44 million who don't have health insurance...which you have no idea about.

Being young and idealistic you can only relate to the sentimental side of the liberal socialist agenda.

I really don't think you want to claim that things such as stopping genocide are only important to the "liberal socialist agenda". First off because it is an incredibly stupid and obviously false claim and secondly what the hell does stopping genocide have to do with socialism?

By the way, I doubt you even know about most of those situations. Perhaps you think its idealistic to want to help people whose government massacres them, but I don't. Oh wait...you only agree with it if Rush tells you that its ok...because Iraq was all about humanitarian needs, but those other countries...well being against that is part of a "liberal socialist agenda". If you think the liberal agenda is socialist, you don't know what socialism is. Get an education, then come back to me.

The War on Poverty, started by Johnson, decades later and after spending TRILLIONS, was a total failure. The 1996 Welfare Reform was actually the most successful anti-poverty reform because it did away with a lot of the liberal "entitlement" attitude which only causes a never-ending cycle of dependency and poverty. It also proved that the poor were largely not working not because there were no jobs but because it was much easier to sit on their butts and collect a check. Wake up and smell reality.

Really? Please explain to me why the poverty rate has been rising every year since 2000 then.

With liberals, encouragement always seems to wind up with enforcement.

What a fabulous lie.

I think liberals pick and choose which facts fit or don't fit their agenda.

You are incorrect, and a partisan hack for thinking this.

So, because this excellent site obviously irritates you (for good reason)… you just throw a wet blanket of denial onto the entire site and start jabbing at people while clearly ignoring the facts staring right at you. What a putz.

Are you joking? Excellent site? Its built and maintained by ONE person. There are no facts there, just opinions. It irritates me because it is obviously biased and partisan, so yes I throw a "wet blanket of denial onto the entire site". If you don't have evidence that is from a reputable site, don't bother posting it. Or else I'm going to make that site that says you rape little boys and post it here.

 

[Larkinn]

I think the point is that in order for your argument to work (socialized medicine will lead to a healthier nation overall) some assumptions have to be made about our nations poor and uninsures.

Such as they are poor and uninsured?

I addressed this somewhat in my last post to you (feel free to get to that when you'd like). the question is are the assumptions accurate. Many people like myself and RSR are simply poiting out the realities of what constitute the poor and uninsured for our country.

I haven't gotten to your post yet...which I apologize for. However, if you haven't said it in that post, what assumptions would they be?

And I still don't buy the argument that we have to compare ourselves to other countries.

We don't have to, but it provides a valuable point of reference. You just don't like it because it shows us as a very poor provider of healthcare.

 

[Bern80]

The overall point is that for one your argument to work Larkinn, certain things have to be true about those 44 million uninsured or 15% of the population.

Your argument was that if we can get those 44 million insured along with everybody else, then it will raise the avg health of the nation. As I tried to show in the post you said you weren't going to reply to right away, given the proportion of uninsued to insured it would be extremely difficult for that to happen.

In some ways you can liken the uninsured rate to the unemployment rate. Right now the country has roughly 5% unenployment which is generally accepted as normal. In fact most economists say it would be abnormal for it to drop much below that. because 5% unemployment does not mean that 5% of the population are looking for jobs and can;t find them. The same is true of health insurance.. that 44 million includes differenent groups of people. they aren't all people that simply cant afford health insurance.

So again teh number of people you are reallyu interest in really isn't 44 million its's some number less than that. and if that's the cas it's even more difficult to rasie the avg health of the nation by socializing medicine.

 

[Bern80]

We don't have to, but it provides a valuable point of reference. You just don't like it because it shows us as a very poor provider of healthcare.

And I don't believe it does show that. You continue to insist that number 37 is the only important thing and that the factors that created the 37 are irreleveant. 37 is an average of various factors and the factors I caer about as far as healthcare are concerend are above that, well above that in fact. What brought us down was the overall health of our country, which I believe given our culture will be hard to change, socialized medicine or not and wheter the cost of health care is shared by all which it isn't. I really don't see how you can quanitfy that as good or bad. That's a value statement for than anything.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

As i said before, stupidity does not deserve the death sentence.

A broken leg is not a death sentence. Why should the rest of us have to shell out the bucks to fix it just because you were too stupid to use a ladder correctly? Because you wanted that big screen more than health insurance? If you go in for "free" emergency care, why shouldn't you be billed for it? We're paying for our broken legs, why shouldn't you?

Who gives a ****? The issue is whether they are in the 44 million who don't have health insurance...which you have no idea about

Of course you don't give a **** because you are proven wrong. You claimed illegals were not counted among the 44 million uninsured. That 44+million uninsured was counted by the Census Bureau in a link that YOU provided.

I really don't think you want to claim that things such as stopping genocide are only important to the "liberal socialist agenda". First off because it is an incredibly stupid and obviously false claim and secondly what the hell does stopping genocide have to do with socialism?
By the way, I doubt you even know about most of those situations. Perhaps you think its idealistic to want to help people whose government massacres them, but I don't. Oh wait...you only agree with it if Rush tells you that its ok...because Iraq was all about humanitarian needs, but those other countries...well being against that is part of a "liberal socialist agenda". If you think the liberal agenda is socialist, you don't know what socialism is. Get an education, then come back to me.

Here we go again with the "you are stupid" and "you are uneducated" accusations which is what liberals typically fall back on when they don't know what you're talking about. I always find it interesting that liberals want to interfere in other countries but NOT interfere in Iraq where the government also massacred people.

A liberal is nothing more than a half-baked socialist. If you're not a socialist, why are you supporting socialized health care?

Really? Please explain to me why the poverty rate has been rising every year since 2000 then.

Just look at the incoming rate of the poor illegals.

What a fabulous lie.

Everything you can't disprove is a lie, isn't it?

You are incorrect, and a partisan hack for thinking this.

That just what you think...and it's a sure bet I'm anti-liberal.

Are you joking? Excellent site? Its built and maintained by ONE person. There are no facts there, just opinions. It irritates me because it is obviously biased and partisan, so yes I throw a "wet blanket of denial onto the entire site". If you don't have evidence that is from a reputable site, don't bother posting it. Or else I'm going to make that site that says you rape little boys and post it here.

It's a good site because it provides you with tons of info about the food police, a topic you know nothing about. It's chock full of links to bonafide news articles. Why don't you stop your liberal sniping and actually learn something? And what's with the repetitive "raping little boys" crap? You got a problem or something?

 

[Larkinn]

A broken leg is not a death sentence. Why should the rest of us have to shell out the bucks to fix it just because you were too stupid to use a ladder correctly? Because you wanted that big screen more than health insurance? If you go in for "free" emergency care, why shouldn't you be billed for it? We're paying for our broken legs, why shouldn't you?

A broken leg can be a death sentence without proper treatment. Ever heard of gangrene? And there isn't exactly an epidemic of broken legs in this country.

As I stated before, which you conveniently ignored, 18,000 people a year die because they are uninsured.

Of course you don't give a **** because you are proven wrong. You claimed illegals were not counted among the 44 million uninsured. That 44+million uninsured was counted by the Census Bureau in a link that YOU provided.

No, actually I never claimed that. Go and quote me where I claimed that, or retract it.

Here we go again with the "you are stupid" and "you are uneducated" accusations which is what liberals typically fall back on when they don't know what you're talking about. I always find it interesting that liberals want to interfere in other countries but NOT interfere in Iraq where the government also massacred people.

I know exactly what you are talking about, which is why I know exactly what a stupid claim it is.

Yes...compare Darfur to Iraq.

Nobody knows how many people have died during the two-year conflict in Sudan's western Darfur region.

But the widely quoted United Nations figure of 70,000 is clearly wrong, because it was based on a study that does not include those killed in the violence and just covers a six-month period.

The UN says that more than two million of the estimated six million population have fled their homes, but the organisation is reluctant to suggest how many might have died in total.

Some analysts are estimating that the true death toll could be four or five times higher than the 70,000 figure.

But no...lets invade Iraq. How many people did the government murder in 2002 SE? Tell me that.

A liberal is nothing more than a half-baked socialist. If you're not a socialist, why are you supporting socialized health care?

Are you serious? Do you honestly believe the asinine idea that anyone who supports socialized healthcare is a socialist?

Just look at the incoming rate of the poor illegals.

And look at it the huge wide gulf between 1996 and 2000 that would account for the difference in poverty increase between those two years...oh wait.

More unsubstantiated bullshit.

Everything you can't disprove is a lie, isn't it?

Umm, no, if I can't disprove it, it would either be the truth or disprovable. However you said With liberals, encouragement always seems to wind up with enforcement.. Liberals like to encourage wearing condoms. This has been going on for some time now. So when do you think that mandatory condom-wearing will be enforced by liberals?

Really, its getting tiring disproving all of your lies. Can't you just be honest and look at the issue instead of talking this bullshit about "omg liberals suck hawz hawz".

That just what you think...and it's a sure bet I'm anti-liberal.

You are anti-liberal because you are a ******* moron. Feel free to disagree with liberals, think they are wrong, but being "anti-liberal" points to the fact that you are little more than a conservative ***** who is unable to recognize someone elses point of view.

It's a good site because it provides you with tons of info about the food police, a topic you know nothing about. It's chock full of links to bonafide news articles. Why don't you stop your liberal sniping and actually learn something? And what's with the repetitive "raping little boys" crap? You got a problem or something?

[/quote]

You really want to get your ass kicked, don't you?

Tell me, son, do you think cocaine should be legal? How about heroine. Or even, marijuana. No? Then tell me why dangerous foods should be legal. They have been regulating food since the FDA was introduced. This is why people can't sell coca-cola with cocaine in it anymore (a pity really).

Yes, I looked at the site. Calling it the "food police" is idiotic to the extreme. It is also extremely biased and includes numerous links that either don't work or are to extremely partisan sites. The ones to genuine news agencies that work are generally about such crimes as the FDA making recommendations (omg...a recommendation? I am terrified!), and Disney signing only deals with healthy restaurants (omg...the cads...who do they are to decide who they want to do business with?).

The only thing with a teensiest bit of merit on that idiotic site is the trans fat ban.

And about trans fats...

from Harvard

"By our most conservative estimate, replacement of partially hydrogenated fat in the U.S. diet with natural unhydrogenated vegetable oils would prevent approximately 30,000 premature coronary deaths per year, and epidemiologic evidence suggests this number is closer to 100,000 premature deaths annually."

omg...the police want to save 30,000 people from prematurely dying every year...******* nazis...

 

[Larkinn]

And a note about the insults. Don't generalize, don't lie, and don't bash an entire belief system, and you'll be fine. But do any of those things and I reserve full right to condemn you for the moron you are, which you have showed by your committing one of the above offences.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

Its very hard to get past the anger, what is everyone talking about. Im sorry but its very hard to go back over tons of long posts when you have learning disabilities. Its a fact.

oh and i wish those who were insulting, would stop.

And a note about the insults. Don't generalize, don't lie, and don't bash an entire belief system, and you'll be fine. But do any of those things and I reserve full right to condemn you for the moron you are, which you have showed by your committing one of the above offences.