has privatized health care worked anywhere in the world?

___________________

soulful/latin/deep house + jazz

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss well meaning but without understanding.

I think this guy describes himself pretty well. There are no bigger dunces in politics than the supposedly "freedom-loving" conservatives, who have stood by their republican leaders despite more than a quarter century of the republicans shitting on small government and shitting on individual liberty at very nearly every opportunity.

When I hear someone describing themselves as a "conservative" tell me they support freedom, I immediately know that they are one of two things: a fool, or a liar. Mark Steyn here is probably the former; you could call him "well meaning but without understanding."

If there was any question before Dubya -- and I don't think there was -- that the vast majority of "conservatives" entirely disagreed with the idea "live free or die," there certainly isn't any longer. In case Mr. Steyn forgot, after all, we just spent the last seven years eroding civil liberties while expanding government at an unprecedented pace. Why? Oh yes, because the cowards among us were afraid that the terrorist boogeyman might kill a few Americans. In 2004 -- after the first three years of this systematic attack on freedom -- I didn't hear many clarion calls from Mr. Steyn's conservative buddies to bring back "live free or die." Quite the contrary: they overwhelmingly called for an encore. And they got exactly what they asked for: more big government, more erosion of freedom. Enter John McCain, in 2008, promising to continue the same erosion of freedom, and proposing programs that would undoubtedly continue the rapid expansion of government. "Conservatives" enthusiastically supported him. Freedom-loving? I think not.

And that brings us back to the topic of "well meaning but without understanding" . . . .

Mr. Steyn has a lot of good ideas; but if he thinks conservatism remotely represents those ideas, he's been living in a dream world for a long, long time. And if he -- and people who think like him -- don't wake up from that dream, they will continue to be the pawns of the enemies of freedom; and they will continue to be the kind of people who support "live free or die" with their mouths, but who vote "i don't care about freedom; protect me big government" with their ballots; and who preach "individual responsibility" with their mouths, but support big spending government officials who couldn't balance the budget if their life depended on it with their ballots.

For that matter, well meaning though he may be, it appears he does not understand the issues that he bases his opinions on. The "wealth-spreading" straw man is a good example: I don't agree with all aspects Obama's tax plan (raising capital gains taxes is a particularly bad idea); even so, tweaking tax rates a few percentage points is hardly cataclysmic. What would have been cataclysmic, on the other hand, is what Mr. Steyn appears to think we ought to have done about the economic crisis, which is, apparently, nothing. That would have more or less been rolling out the red carpet for Great Depression v 2.0, and Mr. Steyn might want to take a look at a history textbook and see what the likely political consequences of that would have been, then consider whether they comport with this philosophy.

The Democrats are hardly an ideal substitute, and there is indeed good reason to expect that they will continue the expansion of government, but for anyone who genuinely supports freedom the Republicans -- populists masquerading as conservatives -- are simply not an option; at least, not for those with understanding.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I think this guy describes himself pretty well. There are no bigger dunces in politics than the supposedly "freedom-loving" conservatives, who have stood by their republican leaders despite more than a quarter century of the republicans shitting on small government and shitting on individual liberty at very nearly every opportunity. When I hear someone describing themselves as a "conservative" tell me they support freedom, I immediately know that they are one of two things: a fool, or a liar. Mark Steyn here is probably the former; you could call him "well meaning but without understanding." If there was any question before Dubya -- and I don't think there was -- that the vast majority of "conservatives" entirely disagreed with the idea "live free or die," there certainly isn't any longer. In case Mr. Steyn forgot, after all, we just spent the last seven years eroding civil liberties while expanding government at an unprecedented pace. Why? Oh yes, because the cowards among us were afraid that the terrorist boogeyman might kill a few Americans. In 2004 -- after the first three years of this systematic attack on freedom -- I didn't hear many clarion calls from Mr. Steyn's conservative buddies to bring back "live free or die." Quite the contrary: they overwhelmingly called for an encore. And they got exactly what they asked for: more big government, more erosion of freedom. Enter John McCain, in 2008, promising to continue the same erosion of freedom, and proposing programs that would undoubtedly continue the rapid expansion of government. "Conservatives" enthusiastically supported him. Freedom-loving? I think not. And that brings us back to the topic of "well meaning but without understanding" . . . . Mr. Steyn has a lot of good ideas; but if he thinks conservatism remotely represents those ideas, he's been living in a dream world for a long, long time. And if he -- and people who think like him -- don't wake up from that dream, they will continue to be the pawns of the enemies of freedom; and they will continue to be the kind of people who support "live free or die" with their mouths, but who vote "i don't care about freedom; protect me big government" with their ballots; and who preach "individual responsibility" with their mouths, but support big spending government officials who couldn't balance the budget if their life depended on it with their ballots. For that matter, well meaning though he may be, it appears he does not understand the issues that he bases his opinions on. The "wealth-spreading" straw man is a good example: I don't agree with all aspects Obama's tax plan (raising capital gains taxes is a particularly bad idea); even so, tweaking tax rates a few percentage points is hardly cataclysmic. What would have been cataclysmic, on the other hand, is what Mr. Steyn appears to think we ought to have done about the economic crisis, which is, apparently, nothing. That would have more or less been rolling out the red carpet for Great Depression v 2.0, and Mr. Steyn might want to take a look at a history textbook and see what the likely political consequences of that would have been, then consider whether they comport with this philosophy. The Democrats are hardly an ideal substitute, and there is indeed good reason to expect that they will continue the expansion of government, but for anyone who genuinely supports freedom the Republicans -- populists masquerading as conservatives -- are simply not an option; at least, not for those with understanding.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I think this guy describes himself pretty well. There are no bigger dunces in politics than the supposedly "freedom-loving" conservatives, who have stood by their republican leaders despite more than a quarter century of the republicans shitting on small government and shitting on individual liberty at very nearly every opportunity. When I hear someone describing themselves as a "conservative" tell me they support freedom, I immediately know that they are one of two things: a fool, or a liar. Mark Steyn here is probably the former; you could call him "well meaning but without understanding." If there was any question before Dubya -- and I don't think there was -- that the vast majority of "conservatives" entirely disagreed with the idea "live free or die," there certainly isn't any longer. In case Mr. Steyn forgot, after all, we just spent the last seven years eroding civil liberties while expanding government at an unprecedented pace. Why? Oh yes, because the cowards among us were afraid that the terrorist boogeyman might kill a few Americans. In 2004 -- after the first three years of this systematic attack on freedom -- I didn't hear many clarion calls from Mr. Steyn's conservative buddies to bring back "live free or die." Quite the contrary: they overwhelmingly called for an encore. And they got exactly what they asked for: more big government, more erosion of freedom. Enter John McCain, in 2008, promising to continue the same erosion of freedom, and proposing programs that would undoubtedly continue the rapid expansion of government. "Conservatives" enthusiastically supported him. Freedom-loving? I think not. And that brings us back to the topic of "well meaning but without understanding" . . . . Mr. Steyn has a lot of good ideas; but if he thinks conservatism remotely represents those ideas, he's been living in a dream world for a long, long time. And if he -- and people who think like him -- don't wake up from that dream, they will continue to be the pawns of the enemies of freedom; and they will continue to be the kind of people who support "live free or die" with their mouths, but who vote "i don't care about freedom; protect me big government" with their ballots; and who preach "individual responsibility" with their mouths, but support big spending government officials who couldn't balance the budget if their life depended on it with their ballots. For that matter, well meaning though he may be, it appears he does not understand the issues that he bases his opinions on. The "wealth-spreading" straw man is a good example: I don't agree with all aspects Obama's tax plan (raising capital gains taxes is a particularly bad idea); even so, tweaking tax rates a few percentage points is hardly cataclysmic. What would have been cataclysmic, on the other hand, is what Mr. Steyn appears to think we ought to have done about the economic crisis, which is, apparently, nothing. That would have more or less been rolling out the red carpet for Great Depression v 2.0, and Mr. Steyn might want to take a look at a history textbook and see what the likely political consequences of that would have been, then consider whether they comport with this philosophy. The Democrats are hardly an ideal substitute, and there is indeed good reason to expect that they will continue the expansion of government, but for anyone who genuinely supports freedom the Republicans -- populists masquerading as conservatives -- are simply not an option; at least, not for those with understanding.

Very well said. +1

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Enter John McCain, in 2008, promising to continue the same erosion of freedom, and proposing programs that would undoubtedly continue the rapid expansion of government. "Conservatives" enthusiastically supported him. Freedom-loving? I think not. The Democrats are hardly an ideal substitute, and there is indeed good reason to expect that they will continue the expansion of government, but for anyone who genuinely supports freedom the Republicans -- populists masquerading as conservatives -- are simply not an option; at least, not for those with understanding.

Damn man, you put out some well thought, well written points of view. Nice work. I totally agree with you about Dubya, but you're not really correct about McCain supporters. True conservatives were as far away from being enthusiastic towards him as you can imagine. It wasn't until Palin came aboard did the conservatives start to rally. It was only those masquerading as conservatives and RINO's/moderates that pushed for him to be the nominee, thinking that electing someone attractive to the other side of the aisle was the way to win. It proved wrong as expected (by true conservatives), being that the independants and moderates broke for Obama. You can see it in the exit polls... a lot of people on the republican side (solid conservatives) stayed home because they just couldn't bring themselves to vote for McCain.

It's easier to vote FOR something than AGAINST something, and more people believed in Obama's message and voted for him, while those (like myself) who were voting for McCain for the sole purpose of him being the lesser of 2 evils didn't have enough turnout to impact anything. He was far from inspiring. Conservatism in and of itelf DOES represent the ideas that Steyn talked about, but they were not and have not been implemented in a while, which is the problem for the GOP who is supposed to be the party that represents those people.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Damn man, you put out some well thought, well written points of view. Nice work. I totally agree with you about Dubya, but you're not really correct about McCain supporters. True conservatives were as far away from being enthusiastic towards him as you can imagine. It wasn't until Palin came aboard did the conservatives start to rally. It was only those masquerading as conservatives and RINO's/moderates that pushed for him to be the nominee, thinking that electing someone attractive to the other side of the aisle was the way to win. It proved wrong as expected (by true conservatives), being that the independants and moderates broke for Obama. You can see it in the exit polls... a lot of people on the republican side (solid conservatives) stayed home because they just couldn't bring themselves to vote for McCain. It's easier to vote FOR something than AGAINST something, and more people believed in Obama's message and voted for him, while those (like myself) who were voting for McCain for the sole purpose of him being the lesser of 2 evils didn't have enough turnout to impact anything. He was far from inspiring. Conservatism in and of itelf DOES represent the ideas that Steyn talked about, but they were not and have not been implemented in a while, which is the problem for the GOP who is supposed to be the party that represents those people.

The fact that you're matching Palin with true conservatism just proves Arbiter's point.

Secondly, it's not easier to vote for something that against something. A big part of this election, and why you lost with centrist independents has to do with voting against Bush, whose policies McCain promised to continue.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Very well said. +1

Arbiter did indeed nail it. "Conservatives" today are not conservatives. They are radicals. They lost because they did not offer a vision of limited government and more personal freedom and personal responsibility. They offered "democrat-lite" on economic policy, heavy authoritarianism on social policy, and radical "we gotta reshape the world with force" neoconservatism on foreign policy.

The classic idea of non-interventionist conservatism is dead within the republican party. Once they revive that wing, they might have a chance. Until then they deserve to keep losing.

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy The fact that you're matching Palin with true conservatism just proves Arbiter's point.

Here you go again, trying to instruct a conservative on conservative perspectives. It's like in Cosmopolitan Magazine how they have women telling other women how to satisfy a man... why don't they ask the men to get the truth? Anyway, I'm not matching Palin with "true" conservatism, I'm saying she represents that ideal a lot more than McCain does, and that's what it took for actual conservatives to get on board with McCain.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt Arbiter did indeed nail it. "Conservatives" today are not conservatives. They are radicals. They lost because they did not offer a vision of limited government and more personal freedom and personal responsibility. They offered "democrat-lite" on economic policy, heavy authoritarianism on social policy, and radical "we gotta reshape the world with force" neoconservatism on foreign policy. The classic idea of non-interventionist conservatism is dead within the republican party. Once they revive that wing, they might have a chance. Until then they deserve to keep losing.

You are right when you say "conservatives" are not conservatives... putting it in quotations illustrates that there are "conservatives" and then there are actual conservatives. The ones that are radicals and took the route of excessive spending and government growth may still call themselves by that name, but they aren't, and they shouldn't be called conservatives any more than a whore in a Versace dress and Christian Louboutin shoes should be called anything other than a whore.

+1 to the Democrat-Lite comment... that was their downfall, and that is the garbage they tried to feed us. That is exactly why voter turnout for the republicans was low; some people just couldn't get with that bullshit. The GOP strategists tried to sell the people and the party that this was the way to go. Wrong. Regan had 2 landslides because he moved people to the right with his ideas... he didn't get their votes by pretending to be more like Democrats. McCain just doesn't get it. The republicans have a good farm team right now of young inspiring people like Jindal... we'll see what happens in 4 years.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss almost every advanced nation is more left than it was, and getting lefter. Even in America, federal spending (in inflation-adjusted 2007 dollars) has gone from $600 billion in 1965 to $3 trillion today.

this is the bit that really fucks me off- this insinuation that a government's ideological place on the left-right scale can be determined by spending. and that you can label a government 'left' if they spend a lot.

why do the partisan right hacks always sound just that little less educated than the partisan left ones?

australia and the US (for instance) have only recently chosen to oust two of the most right-wing governments in their recent memory. calling these parties 'left' is like labelling me a christian.

i stopped reading after that.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter I think this guy describes himself pretty well. There are no bigger dunces in politics than the supposedly "freedom-loving" conservatives, who have stood by their republican leaders despite more than a quarter century of the republicans shitting on small government and shitting on individual liberty at very nearly every opportunity. When I hear someone describing themselves as a "conservative" tell me they support freedom, I immediately know that they are one of two things: a fool, or a liar. Mark Steyn here is probably the former; you could call him "well meaning but without understanding." If there was any question before Dubya -- and I don't think there was -- that the vast majority of "conservatives" entirely disagreed with the idea "live free or die," there certainly isn't any longer. In case Mr. Steyn forgot, after all, we just spent the last seven years eroding civil liberties while expanding government at an unprecedented pace. Why? Oh yes, because the cowards among us were afraid that the terrorist boogeyman might kill a few Americans. In 2004 -- after the first three years of this systematic attack on freedom -- I didn't hear many clarion calls from Mr. Steyn's conservative buddies to bring back "live free or die." Quite the contrary: they overwhelmingly called for an encore. And they got exactly what they asked for: more big government, more erosion of freedom. Enter John McCain, in 2008, promising to continue the same erosion of freedom, and proposing programs that would undoubtedly continue the rapid expansion of government. "Conservatives" enthusiastically supported him. Freedom-loving? I think not. And that brings us back to the topic of "well meaning but without understanding" . . . . Mr. Steyn has a lot of good ideas; but if he thinks conservatism remotely represents those ideas, he's been living in a dream world for a long, long time. And if he -- and people who think like him -- don't wake up from that dream, they will continue to be the pawns of the enemies of freedom; and they will continue to be the kind of people who support "live free or die" with their mouths, but who vote "i don't care about freedom; protect me big government" with their ballots; and who preach "individual responsibility" with their mouths, but support big spending government officials who couldn't balance the budget if their life depended on it with their ballots. For that matter, well meaning though he may be, it appears he does not understand the issues that he bases his opinions on. The "wealth-spreading" straw man is a good example: I don't agree with all aspects Obama's tax plan (raising capital gains taxes is a particularly bad idea); even so, tweaking tax rates a few percentage points is hardly cataclysmic. What would have been cataclysmic, on the other hand, is what Mr. Steyn appears to think we ought to have done about the economic crisis, which is, apparently, nothing. That would have more or less been rolling out the red carpet for Great Depression v 2.0, and Mr. Steyn might want to take a look at a history textbook and see what the likely political consequences of that would have been, then consider whether they comport with this philosophy. The Democrats are hardly an ideal substitute, and there is indeed good reason to expect that they will continue the expansion of government, but for anyone who genuinely supports freedom the Republicans -- populists masquerading as conservatives -- are simply not an option; at least, not for those with understanding.

if arbiter were a chick, i'd fuck her even if she was ugly.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN if arbiter were a chick, i'd fuck her even if she was ugly.

are you a homophobe? what's wrong with gay sex?