America is a Christian nation

Apple:If that is not what you're implying then why write it's necessary to destroy God in order to implement social programs? Why do people have to be stripped of all faith to realize medical care for everyone makes sense logically, morally and financially? In other words do you believe social prpograms are against God's plan/will?

That might be what I was implying if that is what I wrote, but that's not the words which are appearing on my monitor. I'm rather surprised, given you went to such lengths to explain how Socialism and Communism are not the same as social programs. How could you have made such a boneheaded misinterpretation? It is well documented and articulated by Marx himself, that in order to transition from a socialist to communist government, all religious faith has to be eliminated. Socialism, and socialist (social) programs, very OFTEN masquerade as religious morality, that's kind of what makes the transition from socialism to communism such an insidious thing.
 
That might be what I was implying if that is what I wrote, but that's not the words which are appearing on my monitor. I'm rather surprised, given you went to such lengths to explain how Socialism and Communism are not the same as social programs. How could you have made such a boneheaded misinterpretation? It is well documented and articulated by Marx himself, that in order to transition from a socialist to communist government, all religious faith has to be eliminated. Socialism, and socialist (social) programs, very OFTEN masquerade as religious morality, that's kind of what makes the transition from socialism to communism such an insidious thing.

So how does implementing government medical relate to eliminating religious faith? As I mentioned previously when my doctor sends me for various tests he asks my choice between a Catholic hospital, a Jewish hospital or the General Hospital. As long as I don't have to fast for a blood test I usually choose the Jewish hospital because the pastry in the coffee shop is to die for! Check out these pastries.
flodni-cake-121207.jpg


images


images


We're talking cream cheese dough filled with chocolate, raisins, nuts and/or preserves.

Anyway, I don't see the connection between social programs and ones diminishing belief in God. I would think that people being helped by social programs would be more inclined to believe in a God as opposed to someone who is needlessly suffering.
 
It's the second one you're having problems with, specifically "live peacefully within a society."

I don't know what you're talking about


As a member of society one has obligations, from maintaining public parks to ensuring citizens receive medical care. Now, by contributing to a public/national park that does not mean one has to go to the park. The park is there if one wishes to go and if they don't, that's fine, also. The same with medical care. As a member of society one is obliged to contribute to the benefit of the society in which they choose to live. That does not mean one is compelled to obtain medical care. You're free to choose.


As a member of society, I have absolutely NO OBLIGATION to maintain a park or supply others with care of any kind, unless I make use of that park or demand care from others......my obligation is to not be a burden on anyone else in the society and to take total responsibility for all I do and see that I don't harm anyone directly by my actions.....

As a member of society one is obliged to contribute to the benefit of the society in which they choose to live ??? But I am free to contribute

As a member of society I am obliged to PAY for any and all goods and services I make use of that are there for society.....
just as I would expect others to PAY for some special talent or service I make available to them IF they see fit to use it.
 
So how does implementing government medical relate to eliminating religious faith? As I mentioned previously when my doctor sends me for various tests he asks my choice between a Catholic hospital, a Jewish hospital or the General Hospital. As long as I don't have to fast for a blood test I usually choose the Jewish hospital because the pastry in the coffee shop is to die for! Check out these pastries.
flodni-cake-121207.jpg


images


images


We're talking cream cheese dough filled with chocolate, raisins, nuts and/or preserves.

Anyway, I don't see the connection between social programs and ones diminishing belief in God. I would think that people being helped by social programs would be more inclined to believe in a God as opposed to someone who is needlessly suffering.

Again, implementing seemingly harmless social programs are not Socialism or Communism per say, you have repeatedly made this point, have you not? How can it be, that you are not seeing your own point, and continue to try and confuse social programs with transitioning government from socialist to communist? It's two entirely different discussions, according to your own understandings. You seem to be defying your own logic here.

Government or state control and distribution of something that can be provided better through capitalism, is Socialist. Your philosophy regarding health care, is Socialist. The general direction of Liberalism in America, is Socialist. Socialism pretends to be "moral" and "caring" and everything nice with sugar and spice, or whatever it needs to pretend to be, in order to be accepted by the masses. And on paper, Socialism appears to have some promise, so a lot of really stupid people who think they are smart, will gladly and gleefully adopt these Socialist ideas, and formulate them into a vision of what the future holds.... We conservatives refer to this 'vision' as Liberal Utopia.

The problems arise when these policies are implemented and fail because of the human factor. How people react and respond to things, is not factored in the "on paper" socialistic theory, and it ultimately dooms the ideology to failure. If socialist policy is propped up long enough, it becomes entrenched policy that can't be changed without a revolution of the people. Such revolutions are often centered around religious faith and belief in God. If God has been eradicated from society, you can see this would be much easier to avoid. Once control of everything is wrangled from the people, Communist government can proceed. Elimination of God, and more specifically, the masses faith and belief in God, is essential to transitioning the Socialist Statist government to a full-fledged Communistic government, and that appears to be the nature of the trail we are currently on in America.
 
Again, implementing seemingly harmless social programs are not Socialism or Communism per say, you have repeatedly made this point, have you not? How can it be, that you are not seeing your own point, and continue to try and confuse social programs with transitioning government from socialist to communist? It's two entirely different discussions, according to your own understandings. You seem to be defying your own logic here.

Yes, they are two different things yet some people tend to confuse them.

Government or state control and distribution of something that can be provided better through capitalism, is Socialist. Your philosophy regarding health care, is Socialist. The general direction of Liberalism in America, is Socialist. Socialism pretends to be "moral" and "caring" and everything nice with sugar and spice, or whatever it needs to pretend to be, in order to be accepted by the masses. And on paper, Socialism appears to have some promise, so a lot of really stupid people who think they are smart, will gladly and gleefully adopt these Socialist ideas, and formulate them into a vision of what the future holds.... We conservatives refer to this 'vision' as Liberal Utopia.

"Government or state control and distribution of something that can be provided better through capitalism, is Socialist."

I agree. What you fail to understand is everything was, at one time, controlled/distributed through capitalism and when it was realized it didn't work the government stepped in. This is exactly what Obama was referring to when he mentioned "tired, old, worn out ideas". From SS to welfare to medical care we've seen how capitalism dealt with it. Well, maybe not actually seen but the history is there for anyone interested in finding out. The poor and the elderly suffered and died. Thus, SS and welfare.

The capitalists have had almost 80 years since the New Deal (1933) to step up to the plate. Eighty years! Of course, 30-some years after the New Deal (1965) the capitalists decided to let the government get partially involved but, hey, not too much (Medicare/Medicaid). "We'll look after things", sayeth the capitalist. Today, we have 45,000 citizens dying every year due a lack of medical insurance. Isn't it time for a new approach?

As for "Liberal Utopia" the question is why are some people doing without when there is enough for everyone?

The problems arise when these policies are implemented and fail because of the human factor. How people react and respond to things, is not factored in the "on paper" socialistic theory, and it ultimately dooms the ideology to failure. If socialist policy is propped up long enough, it becomes entrenched policy that can't be changed without a revolution of the people. Such revolutions are often centered around religious faith and belief in God. If God has been eradicated from society, you can see this would be much easier to avoid. Once control of everything is wrangled from the people, Communist government can proceed. Elimination of God, and more specifically, the masses faith and belief in God, is essential to transitioning the Socialist Statist government to a full-fledged Communistic government, and that appears to be the nature of the trail we are currently on in America.

"The problems arise when these policies are implemented and fail because of the human factor."

As I mentioned before Socialist and Communist countries in the past were not democracies. The failure was due to the corruption. If governments can be voted out of power the corrupt ones can be prosecuted. People always like to quote that old maxim, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." While that may be true it has no bearing on a democracy because if one can be voted out of power they do not hold absolute power.

The question you have to ask yourself is, "Are you against social policies because they may become corrupt or are you fundamentally against social policies, regardless of how they're run?" I would venture to guess the answer is the latter as witnessed by your opposition to government health care. Dozens of democratic countries, over 50+ years, have had government health care and the vast majority of citizens support their respective plans.
 
As a member of society, I have absolutely NO OBLIGATION to maintain a park or supply others with care of any kind, unless I make use of that park or demand care from others......my obligation is to not be a burden on anyone else in the society and to take total responsibility for all I do and see that I don't harm anyone directly by my actions.....

As a member of society one is obliged to contribute to the benefit of the society in which they choose to live ??? But I am free to contribute

As a member of society I am obliged to PAY for any and all goods and services I make use of that are there for society.....
just as I would expect others to PAY for some special talent or service I make available to them IF they see fit to use it.

You're a fucking idiot.
 
Maybe the only reason Blabo hasn't moved to Somalia yet is that there are too many Blacks there to suit him.




Poor Blabo.


Joe Republican - The self-made man.

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
 
Maybe the only reason Blabo hasn't moved to Somalia yet is that there are too many Blacks there to suit him.


Poor Blabo.

We've been thru 88 posts with not one single mention of African Americans.......wtf does race have to do with the thread ?

Poor Pathetic AssWipe ......lost it completely haven't you.......

How fuckin' sad to be a race baiting prick like you.......

Poor AssWipe.....
 
Last edited:
Joe Republican - The self-made man.

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Joe Republican - The self-made man.

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because as a hunter, fisherman and outdoors man, he fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some government regulations ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because he forfeited higher pay so the company would afford medical insurance for the employees.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because his Republican Congressman fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. He'd never want to have his hair messed up..... normally he just uses the bar of soap....

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because as an environmentalist he fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air or water, and ruining his sport fishing or his lungs.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk his taxes help pay for and to a subway station to pay for his token for his ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because so many are now using public transportation....only because gas prices are ridiculously high because of environmental wackos and liberals not allowing us to use our own resources....

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because Joe is an excellent employee with a strong work ethic.....The company provides these benefits so Joe will stay with the company.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because of taxes every worker pays, along with company contributions, that provides these programs in case of some temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because business needs to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression so there are funds to borrow for business expansion and home mortgages....

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because it helps business if workers are trained to do more than dig ditches like his Democrat neighbors.
Joe never forgets that his federally subsidized student loans are his obligation to repay so he doesn't become a burden to taxpayers. He attended a state university funded by his and corporate tax dollars.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because imports were destroying
the car industry in the US due to lack of innovations.....and they decided to makes the changes necessary to compete for his business.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house bought and paid for by his Father and Grandfathers hard work to make their farming business a success.....
The house didn't have electricity until some smart business man saw the pool of new customers the rural homes represented....

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives the Social Security his taxes paid for and personal savings because farmers don't get a union pension.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. Joe already knew this in his heart....He and his neighbors
fought and died to save the country and its allies from the Socialists, Communists, and Fascists in WWII.
After all, Joe is a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like his father before him.....
 
Last edited:
Yes, they are two different things yet some people tend to confuse them.

Obviously, since YOU confused them after explaining the difference. It must be very easy to do.

"Government or state control and distribution of something that can be provided better through capitalism, is Socialist."

I agree. What you fail to understand is everything was, at one time, controlled/distributed through capitalism and when it was realized it didn't work the government stepped in. This is exactly what Obama was referring to when he mentioned "tired, old, worn out ideas". From SS to welfare to medical care we've seen how capitalism dealt with it. Well, maybe not actually seen but the history is there for anyone interested in finding out. The poor and the elderly suffered and died. Thus, SS and welfare.

This is where you are just wrong, everything wasn't at one time controlled/distributed through capitalism. Some things simply can't be provided by capitalism, like national defense. Social Security came into consideration as a means to set aside money for one's future, to care for them in old age. It wasn't someone else's money being used to fund this handout and that, it was specified funds you paid in, and then were allowed to draw after retirement. As with ANY socialist program, it became corrupted, bloated, redundant, and inefficient over time, and is now on the verge of collapse. It will NEVER be able to pay for the retirements of MILLIONS of Americans currently paying into it. Before SS, individuals were responsible for their own retirements, and smart responsible people planned for that and did quite well with investments, maybe they bought property or gold? When they finally retired, they had plenty set aside and lived comfortably, and when they died, they left the remainder to their children and families. The "private" system is MUCH MUCH better than our current Socialist Security system, because 1.) The money will be there... and 2.) The individual owns the nest-egg. In fact, the only downside to the "private" method, is that some people are just too abjectly stupid and ignorant to save for their own retirement, and will end up having nothing and needing to depend on the benevolence of society in their old age. Prior to SS, this was done by churches and charity groups. Most of which, were sponsored and volunteered to, by capitalists and people earning capitalist livings.

The capitalists have had almost 80 years since the New Deal (1933) to step up to the plate. Eighty years! Of course, 30-some years after the New Deal (1965) the capitalists decided to let the government get partially involved but, hey, not too much (Medicare/Medicaid). "We'll look after things", sayeth the capitalist. Today, we have 45,000 citizens dying every year due a lack of medical insurance. Isn't it time for a new approach?

LMFAO... What do you mean, step up to the plate? You don't think capitalism provided jobs, commerce, economic growth, since 1933? ReaaaallY? And I just want to note, you are doing it again... contradicting your own point about social programs not being socialist... you continue to frame your comments in the context of capitalist vs. socialist, as you just did here. You seem to think capitalists didn't favor social security, that it was a socialist policy.... is that what you thought, apple? That socialists wanted social security, and capitalists didn't? Because, again... if social programs are not Socialism, then it would seem capitalists and socialists would both be found to be in agreement on them. Turns out, the actual Congressional votes show, not many Socialists voted for Social Security, because there weren't that many of them in there at the time, and the program had pretty significant support from capitalists, who comprised most of the Congress.

It doesn't matter how many people you believe have died per year due to lack of medical insurance. The conclusive scientific and medical fact of the matter is, no human being in the history of humans, has ever expired as a result of not possessing a policy for health care coverage. It simply hasn't ever happened. When you can post some example of a person who's cause of death was lack of insurance, let me know!! What you have concocted, is a conjecture-turned-presumption, and there is no basis for it. We have no idea of how many people didn't go to a doctor because they didn't have insurance, and would have gone if they had insurance. We have no idea how many people may have gone to the doctor and not followed his advice and died anyway, regardless of their insurance. And even IF they had insurance, and did everything their doctor said, and rich people paid every cent of the bill, and they got every top treatment regardless of cost... we have no idea of how many of those individuals may have still died. So basically, 45k is a number you've pulled from your ass, which means absolutely NOTHING.

As for "Liberal Utopia" the question is why are some people doing without when there is enough for everyone?

Okay......... I really do hate to burst your little bubble like this, but for all the entire history of humanity, it has always and forever in our known universe been, that some people have more than others. Some people do without, while other people have plenty. In fact, there has never been a time or place, in all of recorded history, where everyone had the same. Therefore, we can pretty much conclude, unless rules of the universe change, we will always live in a world where some people have more than others, where some people have less, and where, unfortunately, some do without. There will forever and always be, a Top 1%. You can't ever eliminate them, no matter what plan you follow. The Socialist model you wish to follow, ends with the power and money belonging to the Top 1%, who are also part of the ruling class.

"The problems arise when these policies are implemented and fail because of the human factor."

As I mentioned before Socialist and Communist countries in the past were not democracies. The failure was due to the corruption. If governments can be voted out of power the corrupt ones can be prosecuted. People always like to quote that old maxim, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." While that may be true it has no bearing on a democracy because if one can be voted out of power they do not hold absolute power.

Greece certainly was a democracy, it was the birthplace of democracy, if I'm not mistaken. Presently, they are burning Greece and rioting, because the Socialist policies have left the country bankrupt. The same is true in Spain and France as well. But you see, the ability to vote people out of power begins to crumble when the State holds all the cards, because they make all the rules, count all the votes, and have all the wealth.

The question you have to ask yourself is, "Are you against social policies because they may become corrupt or are you fundamentally against social policies, regardless of how they're run?" I would venture to guess the answer is the latter as witnessed by your opposition to government health care. Dozens of democratic countries, over 50+ years, have had government health care and the vast majority of citizens support their respective plans.

I am against Socialist policies, period. Socialism breeds Socialism. Most every example you can give of true and full nationalized health care, has been a horrifying failure. Many of the places who have implemented the sort of health care you want here, have had to go back and resurrect old capitalist portions of their system, so they can make the numbers work, they did this in Canada and the UK recently. In spite of ALL your examples, none of them can compare, or even be considered in the same arena, as the American health care system, with regard for technology, advancements in medicine, groundbreaking treatments and vaccines, etc. No one else even comes remotely close.
 
Joe Republican - The self-made man.

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because as a hunter, fisherman and outdoors man, he fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some government regulations ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because he forfeited higher pay so the company would afford medical insurance for the employees.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because his Republican Congressman fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. He'd never want to have his hair messed up..... normally he just uses the bar of soap....

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because as an environmentalist he fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air or water, and ruining his sport fishing or his lungs.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk his taxes help pay for and to a subway station to pay for his token for his ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because so many are now using public transportation....only because gas prices are ridiculously high because of environmental wackos and liberals not allowing us to use our own resources....

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because Joe is an excellent employee with a strong work ethic.....The company provides these benefits so Joe will stay with the company.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because of taxes every worker pays, along with company contributions, that provides these programs in case of some temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because business needs to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression so there are funds to borrow for business expansion and home mortgages....

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because it helps business if workers are trained to do more than dig ditches like his Democrat neighbors.
Joe never forgets that his federally subsidized student loans are his obligation to repay so he doesn't become a burden to taxpayers. He attended a state university funded by his and corporate tax dollars.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because imports were destroying
the car industry in the US due to lack of innovations.....and they decided to makes the changes necessary to compete for his business.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house bought and paid for by his Father and Grandfathers hard work to make their farming business a success.....
The house didn't have electricity until some smart business man saw the pool of new customers the rural homes represented....

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives the Social Security his taxes paid for and personal savings because farmers don't get a union pension.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. Joe already knew this in his heart....He and his neighbors
fought and died to save the country and its allies from the Socialists, Communists, and Fascists in WWII.
After all, Joe is a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like his father before him.....

BS
 
you still have not provided any proof, maybe because you do not have any

The proof is simple. All these politicians come from ivy league schools and members of secret type societies. Like the Skull and Bones of Yale that was actually founded by a free mason. More then likely after they had to go underground when it was discovered they killed one of their own for divulging freemason secrets. They went underground and started opening up all these offshoot societies. When it actually started is anyones guess but rich men have been plotting in these secret type societies to dominate the earth for centuries. Look up the Order of the Garter. They seem to be a guild of war profiteers. Then you have the Illuminati whose ring is headed by one of the most powerful bankers in the world. The Rothschilds. For the record, My research points to free masons of old, being agents of European bankers. Basically puppets financed by the rich. Its easy to be a politician when you have endless funds backing you up.
 
The proof is simple. All these politicians come from ivy league schools and members of secret type societies. Like the Skull and Bones of Yale that was actually founded by a free mason. More then likely after they had to go underground when it was discovered they killed one of their own for divulging freemason secrets. They went underground and started opening up all these offshoot societies. When it actually started is anyones guess but rich men have been plotting in these secret type societies to dominate the earth for centuries. Look up the Order of the Garter. They seem to be a guild of war profiteers. Then you have the Illuminati whose ring is headed by one of the most powerful bankers in the world. The Rothschilds. For the record, My research points to free masons of old, being agents of European bankers. Basically puppets financed by the rich. Its easy to be a politician when you have endless funds backing you up.

you are still missing objective proof backed up by credible research
 
This is where you are just wrong, everything wasn't at one time controlled/distributed through capitalism. Some things simply can't be provided by capitalism, like national defense. Social Security came into consideration as a means to set aside money for one's future, to care for them in old age. It wasn't someone else's money being used to fund this handout and that, it was specified funds you paid in, and then were allowed to draw after retirement. As with ANY socialist program, it became corrupted, bloated, redundant, and inefficient over time, and is now on the verge of collapse. It will NEVER be able to pay for the retirements of MILLIONS of Americans currently paying into it. Before SS, individuals were responsible for their own retirements, and smart responsible people planned for that and did quite well with investments, maybe they bought property or gold? When they finally retired, they had plenty set aside and lived comfortably, and when they died, they left the remainder to their children and families. The "private" system is MUCH MUCH better than our current Socialist Security system, because 1.) The money will be there... and 2.) The individual owns the nest-egg. In fact, the only downside to the "private" method, is that some people are just too abjectly stupid and ignorant to save for their own retirement, and will end up having nothing and needing to depend on the benevolence of society in their old age. Prior to SS, this was done by churches and charity groups. Most of which, were sponsored and volunteered to, by capitalists and people earning capitalist livings.

Fewer poor and elderly are dying today due to Social Security regardless of how you wish to spin it.

LMFAO... What do you mean, step up to the plate? You don't think capitalism provided jobs, commerce, economic growth, since 1933? ReaaaallY? And I just want to note, you are doing it again... contradicting your own point about social programs not being socialist... you continue to frame your comments in the context of capitalist vs. socialist, as you just did here. You seem to think capitalists didn't favor social security, that it was a socialist policy.... is that what you thought, apple? That socialists wanted social security, and capitalists didn't? Because, again... if social programs are not Socialism, then it would seem capitalists and socialists would both be found to be in agreement on them. Turns out, the actual Congressional votes show, not many Socialists voted for Social Security, because there weren't that many of them in there at the time, and the program had pretty significant support from capitalists, who comprised most of the Congress.

You're arguing against yourself. If social policies are Socialist then Capitalists wouldn't have voted for them but they did which means social policies does not constitute a Socialist government.

It doesn't matter how many people you believe have died per year due to lack of medical insurance. The conclusive scientific and medical fact of the matter is, no human being in the history of humans, has ever expired as a result of not possessing a policy for health care coverage. It simply hasn't ever happened. When you can post some example of a person who's cause of death was lack of insurance, let me know!! What you have concocted, is a conjecture-turned-presumption, and there is no basis for it. We have no idea of how many people didn't go to a doctor because they didn't have insurance, and would have gone if they had insurance. We have no idea how many people may have gone to the doctor and not followed his advice and died anyway, regardless of their insurance. And even IF they had insurance, and did everything their doctor said, and rich people paid every cent of the bill, and they got every top treatment regardless of cost... we have no idea of how many of those individuals may have still died. So basically, 45k is a number you've pulled from your ass, which means absolutely NOTHING.

Riiiight. Harvard always has someone pulling something out their ass. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...s-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/ Why should people believe a Harvard study when we have a Dixie study?

Okay......... I really do hate to burst your little bubble like this, but for all the entire history of humanity, it has always and forever in our known universe been, that some people have more than others. Some people do without, while other people have plenty. In fact, there has never been a time or place, in all of recorded history, where everyone had the same. Therefore, we can pretty much conclude, unless rules of the universe change, we will always live in a world where some people have more than others, where some people have less, and where, unfortunately, some do without. There will forever and always be, a Top 1%. You can't ever eliminate them, no matter what plan you follow. The Socialist model you wish to follow, ends with the power and money belonging to the Top 1%, who are also part of the ruling class.

This is the perfect example of your lack of understanding. No one is trying to get rid of the 1%. When there are sufficient "life's necessities" available everyone is entitled to an adequate amount. After receiving an adequate amount the 1% can keep all the extras they wish.

Greece certainly was a democracy, it was the birthplace of democracy, if I'm not mistaken. Presently, they are burning Greece and rioting, because the Socialist policies have left the country bankrupt. The same is true in Spain and France as well. But you see, the ability to vote people out of power begins to crumble when the State holds all the cards, because they make all the rules, count all the votes, and have all the wealth.

Greece's problems are due to corruption. For example, buyers and sellers do not declare transactions so no tax is paid. The corruption is so deep no one complains, until now. The same thing happens in other societies. People try to pay cash and avoid taxes. However, that is slowly changing as more and more transactions are done through credit and debit cards and don't forget the Biblical admonition that we'll all require a "chip" in order to make financial transactions. That will throw a wrench in the gears of the people who are nothing more than society's thieves.

I am against Socialist policies, period. Socialism breeds Socialism. Most every example you can give of true and full nationalized health care, has been a horrifying failure. Many of the places who have implemented the sort of health care you want here, have had to go back and resurrect old capitalist portions of their system, so they can make the numbers work, they did this in Canada and the UK recently. In spite of ALL your examples, none of them can compare, or even be considered in the same arena, as the American health care system, with regard for technology, advancements in medicine, groundbreaking treatments and vaccines, etc. No one else even comes remotely close.

Wow! You really are brainwashed. Without getting into details I can get an appointment with my family doctor (non-emergancy) within one week. When he referred me to specialists all the appointments were within two weeks. Furthermore, again, without getting into details, there are certain drugs and drug policies in the US which result in people being denied pain medication. Certain places in Canada have a computerized system where all prescriptions are entered into a database. That prevents one from being able to get fraudulent prescriptions filled. Therefore, those who require certain pain meds have no difficulty in obtaining them.

Of course governments complain about costs even though medical costs with a government plan is 1/3 to 1/2 less expensive per capita. Dozens of countries have had government medical for 50+ years. Some much longer. It works.

You really have to do some serious research because, frankly, when if comes to talking out one's ass you're the board champion.
 
Fewer poor and elderly are dying today due to Social Security regardless of how you wish to spin it.

Well, I never said SS was a bad program or didn't help the poor and elderly. In fact, it was a rather brilliant idea in it's inception and original intent. The problems arose when the system was 'corrupted' as most socialist systems are, eventually. Now, in the case of SS, it was a 'legal' corrupting, as Congress after Congress heaped on new mandates and responsibilities and borrowed money from the trust fund. Now we're faced with a system, regardless of how great it is, that simply can't remain solvent. This brings up the second big problem with socialist policy, what to do when they fail? Obviously, we just can't see how we can live without some kind of social security system, because that is what we've become accustomed to, so what can we do about this now? Well, the answer is simple, we need to reform the system, so that it doesn't go broke, so that it will be there for this generation and the next, and we can rest assured of that. But Democrats and Liberals want to continue exploiting SS for political gain, by falsely claiming Republicans want to get rid of it, and scaring old people with rhetoric. Therefore, Democrats and Liberals stand in the way of reforming the system, fixing it so it remains solvent and viable. You see, if we actually FIX social security, the Dems can't exploit the issue anymore.

You're arguing against yourself. If social policies are Socialist then Capitalists wouldn't have voted for them but they did which means social policies does not constitute a Socialist government.

No, I am not arguing against myself, I am trying to figure out where you stand. Here, you are saying that social policies are NOT Socialism, but a couple posts back, you launched into a tirade against capitalists (opposite of socialists) who "have had almost 80 years since the New Deal (1933) to step up to the plate." And suggest it's time for a new ideology. It would appear you want to support socialist policy and vehemently attack capitalism, but you also want to claim that it's not Socialist. Perhaps you are right, perhaps it's Marxist?

Riiiight. Harvard always has someone pulling something out their ass. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...s-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/ Why should people believe a Harvard study when we have a Dixie study?

This is funny.... So basically, pinheads can put "A Harvard study says...." in front of ANY statement, and it becomes TRUE! No need to discuss it further, because, A Harvard Study SAYS! Again... I don't give a damn WHO says it, Harvard included, find me a fucking example of a human being who has ever died, and the cause of death was found that they lacked an insurance policy!!! People simply do not die because they don't have a piece of paper showing they have insurance, it has never happened in recorded history, and it's not likely going to start happening anytime soon.

This is the perfect example of your lack of understanding. No one is trying to get rid of the 1%. When there are sufficient "life's necessities" available everyone is entitled to an adequate amount. After receiving an adequate amount the 1% can keep all the extras they wish.

But that's not going to happen either. There will always be a Top 1% who have more than they need, and we will always have people who don't have enough. The definition of "adequate" and "necessities" can change, and has changed. (Currently, politicians are debating whether contraceptives are a necessity.) It's a moving goal post, which is never achieved by Liberals. We're always going to be just one funding bill away... one tax increase removed... one more regulatory mandate or social program... from saving the world and preventing death of old and poor people, and making life FAIR! It's like an ever-elusive dangling carrot. Poor and old people will still die. Rich people will most likely keep getting richer, and poor people will most likely still struggle. The difference in your Socialist model and my Capitalist model is, in my model, capitalists who have an interest in a robust economy and achieving goals through freedom and entrepreneurial human spirit, tend to be the Top 1%. In your model, the Top 1% are the Ruling Class elite, who control all the political power, and thus, the people.

We look at the two systems in the best two examples we have, the United States of America, and The United Soviet Socialist Republic. While capitalism was responsible for fighting and winning two world wars, launching the industrial age, inventing countless things to make life better for everyone, generating more money and resources for humanitarian aid that all other countries of the world combined, provided the greatest breakthroughs in medicine, as well as all other areas of science, went to the Moon and Mars, and developed the most powerful military force ever known to mankind. While your model resulted in approximately 100 million deaths, gave us a couple of the world's most ruthless tyrant dictators, and eventually collapsed, (incidentally, without ever solving the problem of old and poor people dying, or poor people getting a bigger piece of the pie.)

Greece's problems are due to corruption. For example, buyers and sellers do not declare transactions so no tax is paid. The corruption is so deep no one complains, until now. The same thing happens in other societies. People try to pay cash and avoid taxes. However, that is slowly changing as more and more transactions are done through credit and debit cards and don't forget the Biblical admonition that we'll all require a "chip" in order to make financial transactions. That will throw a wrench in the gears of the people who are nothing more than society's thieves.

Again, the argument wasn't whether Socialism ends in corrupt failure, the evidence for this is abundant. The point you tried to make was, democracies don't turn into Socialist governments, but they do... Greece is as good example as any. And Greece is also a great example of why Socialism fails. Instead of "spreading the wealth," as it portends, what happens is, the Ruling Class emerges... the government cronies who are to distribute the wealth, never seem to get the job done, the money always seems to find its way to their bank accounts and interests. Pretty soon, when all the capitalists are executed or banished, the only people who really have any wealth to speak of, just so happen to also be the people in charge of everything, including the political control.

Wow! You really are brainwashed. Without getting into details I can get an appointment with my family doctor (non-emergancy) within one week. When he referred me to specialists all the appointments were within two weeks. Furthermore, again, without getting into details, there are certain drugs and drug policies in the US which result in people being denied pain medication. Certain places in Canada have a computerized system where all prescriptions are entered into a database. That prevents one from being able to get fraudulent prescriptions filled. Therefore, those who require certain pain meds have no difficulty in obtaining them.

I have no idea why you are off on a rant about how wonderful your health care is. What you don't seem to grasp is, the most wonderful plan in the world is useless if it can't be sustained or paid for. We can't just live in a fantasy world, where we dream up some great idea that everyone gets free health care and no one has to pay... that isn't reality-based. In the real world, health care is expensive, it has to be. It's expensive because it takes people who know what the fuck they are doing, who have gone to school for countless hours, passed all kinds of tests, completed all kinds of registries and certifications for what they do, and this stuff isn't cheap or easy, it is very expensive and difficult. There isn't a way to make it cheap and affordable, without destroying the quality or availability.

Of course governments complain about costs even though medical costs with a government plan is 1/3 to 1/2 less expensive per capita. Dozens of countries have had government medical for 50+ years. Some much longer. It works.

No it doesn't. Everywhere they have attempted to have full government-run health care, it has been a disaster. It doesn't really matter how cheap it is to see a doctor, if you can't see a doctor because none are available. The ONLY way such a plan is even tenable, is if you can RATION health care. Now, in a country which doesn't have a Constitution, with citizens who do not have Constitutional rights, maybe they can get away with rationing health care, because, after all, what are the people going to do about it? Maybe vote someone out of power, only to be replaced with someone else who can't get rid of the Socialist albatross? And what are they going to "go back to?" The private sector infrastructure is gone, it doesn't exist anymore, you killed it off in the first chapter, remember? The only choice people have, is to remain enslaved to the government-run system, and learn to live with it.

You really have to do some serious research because, frankly, when if comes to talking out one's ass you're the board champion.

I've done plenty of research, it's just that, when I do research, I seek out all kinds of impartial information, whereas, you will gulp down whatever Socialist kool-aid you come across, because you believe it is making your case and proving your point, and helping to move the country toward Socialist government. Where I am truth-driven, you are agenda-driven... that's the big difference in our research methods.

Oh... and modestly, I am NOT the board champ of talking out of my ass... that would have to be either \\\|||/// or poet.
 
Well, I never said SS was a bad program or didn't help the poor and elderly. In fact, it was a rather brilliant idea in it's inception and original intent. The problems arose when the system was 'corrupted' as most socialist systems are, eventually. Now, in the case of SS, it was a 'legal' corrupting, as Congress after Congress heaped on new mandates and responsibilities and borrowed money from the trust fund. Now we're faced with a system, regardless of how great it is, that simply can't remain solvent. This brings up the second big problem with socialist policy, what to do when they fail? Obviously, we just can't see how we can live without some kind of social security system, because that is what we've become accustomed to, so what can we do about this now? Well, the answer is simple, we need to reform the system, so that it doesn't go broke, so that it will be there for this generation and the next, and we can rest assured of that. But Democrats and Liberals want to continue exploiting SS for political gain, by falsely claiming Republicans want to get rid of it, and scaring old people with rhetoric. Therefore, Democrats and Liberals stand in the way of reforming the system, fixing it so it remains solvent and viable. You see, if we actually FIX social security, the Dems can't exploit the issue anymore.

Fix, yes. Cut, no. The purpose of SS was and is to help the poor. The first fix is to forbid government from taking the funds. The second fix is to increase donations (taxes) to make up the shortfall. Taxing back some of the benefits from those who receive over a certain amount of income after retirement would work very well.

No, I am not arguing against myself, I am trying to figure out where you stand. Here, you are saying that social policies are NOT Socialism, but a couple posts back, you launched into a tirade against capitalists (opposite of socialists) who "have had almost 80 years since the New Deal (1933) to step up to the plate." And suggest it's time for a new ideology. It would appear you want to support socialist policy and vehemently attack capitalism, but you also want to claim that it's not Socialist. Perhaps you are right, perhaps it's Marxist?

Perhaps I should have specified unfettered capitalism or Libertarian or free markets or the type of political system that says, “to hell with everyone else”. While I realize I may tilt a little to the left during a gale I am not a fan of true Socialism: Socialism being “the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole” and, of course, dictating how people should live. What goes unmentioned is it’s the freedom loving folks are the ones dictating the conditions of the help people receive from the government.

Take unemployment. The main rule-makers are the businesses (remember, businesses are people) :) who pay a large portion of the cost. One can’t do “this”, they have to do “that” or they are disqualified. The same applies to other government programs.

My plan would be to get rid of the majority of government programs and have a guaranteed income. From unemployment and welfare to tax credits to special medical accounts to….combine government benefits/entitlements into one package. Everyone receiving income contributes and everyone without income receives an amount to cover life’s necessities. The vast majority of human beings are not satisfied to merely survive. The small percentage that is inevitable would not be a burden on the whole of society. Food, shelter, clothing, medical care. Life’s necessities. That’s about it.

This is funny.... So basically, pinheads can put "A Harvard study says...." in front of ANY statement, and it becomes TRUE! No need to discuss it further, because, A Harvard Study SAYS! Again... I don't give a damn WHO says it, Harvard included, find me a fucking example of a human being who has ever died, and the cause of death was found that they lacked an insurance policy!!! People simply do not die because they don't have a piece of paper showing they have insurance, it has never happened in recorded history, and it's not likely going to start happening anytime soon.

You’re just being silly. It’s the lack of that piece of paper that prevents people from receiving preventative care and/or catching diseases before they become well established.

But that's not going to happen either. There will always be a Top 1% who have more than they need, and we will always have people who don't have enough. The definition of "adequate" and "necessities" can change, and has changed. (Currently, politicians are debating whether contraceptives are a necessity.) It's a moving goal post, which is never achieved by Liberals. We're always going to be just one funding bill away... one tax increase removed... one more regulatory mandate or social program... from saving the world and preventing death of old and poor people, and making life FAIR! It's like an ever-elusive dangling carrot. Poor and old people will still die. Rich people will most likely keep getting richer, and poor people will most likely still struggle. The difference in your Socialist model and my Capitalist model is, in my model, capitalists who have an interest in a robust economy and achieving goals through freedom and entrepreneurial human spirit, tend to be the Top 1%. In your model, the Top 1% are the Ruling Class elite, who control all the political power, and thus, the people.

But in my model the people are helped. When one is unemployed or injured on the job do they go to IBM or Apple or General Motors?

As for, “The definition of "adequate" and "necessities" can change, and has changed”, of course it has. It’s called progress. If all we had were blankets and tents with which to keep warm in winter that’s all we could offer.

We look at the two systems in the best two examples we have, the United States of America, and The United Soviet Socialist Republic. While capitalism was responsible for fighting and winning two world wars, launching the industrial age, inventing countless things to make life better for everyone, generating more money and resources for humanitarian aid that all other countries of the world combined, provided the greatest breakthroughs in medicine, as well as all other areas of science, went to the Moon and Mars, and developed the most powerful military force ever known to mankind. While your model resulted in approximately 100 million deaths, gave us a couple of the world's most ruthless tyrant dictators, and eventually collapsed, (incidentally, without ever solving the problem of old and poor people dying, or poor people getting a bigger piece of the pie.)

Let’s not forget the Russians were the first people in space. That’s what started the space race to the moon. That said, you’re comparing two very different societies. It’s like asking why Somalia does not have a bustling economy considering they have an extremely decentralized government. I’m sure you’ve seen the mock AD that has been posted on here.

The point is the people who came to the US were mainly from Britain where “civilization” had flourished for centuries. That, along with a strict rule of law, made progress possible.

If I recall I previously related what an EX from Bulgaria told me. When I asked if her parents were coming for a visit she said both could not come together and one would not come alone. When I asked why they couldn’t come together she said all their belongings would be taken. The Police would be the first ones to help themselves. Their home would be ransacked. They were relatively well off but had to conceal their situation. So, for many, it becomes a question of why attain material goods/success if they are liable to be stolen. The ones who have money, rather than expand a small business, keep it hidden.

Stated another way the societies hadn’t evolved like the societies from which the first immigrants who came to the US were from.

Again, the argument wasn't whether Socialism ends in corrupt failure, the evidence for this is abundant. The point you tried to make was, democracies don't turn into Socialist governments, but they do... Greece is as good example as any. And Greece is also a great example of why Socialism fails. Instead of "spreading the wealth," as it portends, what happens is, the Ruling Class emerges... the government cronies who are to distribute the wealth, never seem to get the job done, the money always seems to find its way to their bank accounts and interests. Pretty soon, when all the capitalists are executed or banished, the only people who really have any wealth to speak of, just so happen to also be the people in charge of everything, including the political control.

It has been noted the average Greek is guilty of avoiding taxes. It wasn’t a case of a “good” population and a “bad” government. No one gave a damn until it was too late. As for executing people, again, you’re talking about a violent revolution. Of course those people are going to stay in charge. You keep omitting the countries of western Europe and others like Canada and Australia which have social policies. People can vote the ruling class out.

I have no idea why you are off on a rant about how wonderful your health care is. What you don't seem to grasp is, the most wonderful plan in the world is useless if it can't be sustained or paid for. We can't just live in a fantasy world, where we dream up some great idea that everyone gets free health care and no one has to pay... that isn't reality-based. In the real world, health care is expensive, it has to be. It's expensive because it takes people who know what the fuck they are doing, who have gone to school for countless hours, passed all kinds of tests, completed all kinds of registries and certifications for what they do, and this stuff isn't cheap or easy, it is very expensive and difficult. There isn't a way to make it cheap and affordable, without destroying the quality or availability.

Wrong! First, government health care has been available since the late 60s in Canada. That’s 50 years. Life expectancy in Canada is equal to or slightly longer than in the US. The cost for the plan is 2/3 the cost compared to the US. Not bad for a program that doesn’t work.

As for the cost of education/training the cost can be subsidized by the government and then the professional can devote a certain amount of hours to the poor and/or housebound. Furthermore, make visits to specialists by referral only so someone doesn’t take up a heart specialist’s time due to heartburn!

No it doesn't. Everywhere they have attempted to have full government-run health care, it has been a disaster. It doesn't really matter how cheap it is to see a doctor, if you can't see a doctor because none are available. The ONLY way such a plan is even tenable, is if you can RATION health care. Now, in a country which doesn't have a Constitution, with citizens who do not have Constitutional rights, maybe they can get away with rationing health care, because, after all, what are the people going to do about it? Maybe vote someone out of power, only to be replaced with someone else who can't get rid of the Socialist albatross? And what are they going to "go back to?" The private sector infrastructure is gone, it doesn't exist anymore, you killed it off in the first chapter, remember? The only choice people have, is to remain enslaved to the government-run system, and learn to live with it

Rationed health care? You mean denying health care to those who can’t afford it?


I've done plenty of research, it's just that, when I do research, I seek out all kinds of impartial information, whereas, you will gulp down whatever Socialist kool-aid you come across, because you believe it is making your case and proving your point, and helping to move the country toward Socialist government. Where I am truth-driven, you are agenda-driven... that's the big difference in our research methods.

If that’s the case show me ONE country where the majority of citizens want to get rid of their health care. Show me ONE politician of any influence who has campaigned on ending government health care in any country that has such a system. If what you say has a shred of truth show just ONE.
 
Back
Top