• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Republicans must block socialized medicine for....

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Not only because they are philosophically against it and we'd hate to become a hellhole like Canada, Sweden, Norway or any other number of industrialized nations.

They need to block healthcare reform to save their party!

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/13/blocking-obamas-health-plan-is-key-to-the-gops-survival/

Got to love those guys over at the Cato Institute.

Is it now being run by Cato Kaelin or butler from the Pink Panther movies?
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Socilized medicine needs to be stopped. Socialized anything needs to be stopped.

Great idea!

We need to stop our socialized national defense.

Privatize the military and allow citizens to purchase their own M1 Abrams!
(They can have my tank when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!)

Sell the National Parks to Disney!

Let Diebold administer elections!

We don't need the EPA, if companies pollute, consumers will simply boycott their products!

We'll rename the country FreedomLand and all live happily (albeit selfishly) in our Libertarian Utopia!

I really hate exclamation points!
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
I really hate people who don't know the difference between Socialism and funding government.

But that's the crux of the problem, now, isn't it?

What is socialistic to one person is basic government to another.

It must be worrisome to you realizing that the immature fit our country started with the Reagan Revolution is over.

Don't worry.

These things are cyclical.

You might live long enough to see a Republican resurgence.

Too bad for you that progressives keep pushing America a little bit further left and the pendulum rarely swings back all the way right. :twisted:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
badaxemoo said:
Sandhusker said:
I really hate people who don't know the difference between Socialism and funding government.

But that's the crux of the problem, now, isn't it?

What is socialistic to one person is basic government to another.

It must be worrisome to you realizing that the immature fit our country started with the Reagan Revolution is over.

Don't worry.

These things are cyclical.

You might live long enough to see a Republican resurgence.

Too bad for you that progressives keep pushing America a little bit further left and the pendulum rarely swings back all the way right. :twisted:

The Repub/Conservative panel discussion I watched the other day on C-SPAN said that unless Repubs start admitting even to themselves their litany of mistakes made by GW and not challenged by Repub lawmakers- Sandhusker might have to live to 120 to see it again :wink: :lol:

They said the Dems arse kissing of the Repubs nationwide in this election was no fluke and went over numerous reasons they are loosing backing rather than building it...
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"Progressives"? What a grandois and total BS self-titleing job that is. Pushing this country to a proven failed system is progress?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
"Progressives"? What a grandois and total BS self-titleing job that is. Pushing this country to a proven failed system is progress?

And tell me whats been so great about this non enforcement of the laws, no oversight, no regulation, no policing system that GW has been at the helm of for 8 years :???:
Most economists are now saying this coming depression he lead us into will be the worst in 100 years, even worse than the Great Depression :roll: :( :???:

I know- I know-- ain't his fault because people with (R) by their name can do no wrong and their sh*t don't stink :???: :roll: :wink: :(
 

alice

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
"Progressives"? What a grandois and total BS self-titleing job that is. Pushing this country to a proven failed system is progress?

And tell me whats been so great about this non enforcement of the laws, no oversight, no regulation, no policing system that GW has been at the helm of for 8 years :???:
Most economists are now saying this coming depression he lead us into will be the worst in 100 years, even worse than the Great Depression :roll: :( :???:

I know- I know-- ain't his fault because people with (R) by their name can do no wrong and their sh*t don't stink :???: :roll: :wink: :(

Woohoo! You go OT!

Alice
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
"Progressives"? What a grandois and total BS self-titleing job that is. Pushing this country to a proven failed system is progress?

And tell me whats been so great about this non enforcement of the laws, no oversight, no regulation, no policing system that GW has been at the helm of for 8 years :???:
Most economists are now saying this coming depression he lead us into will be the worst in 100 years, even worse than the Great Depression :roll: :( :???:

I know- I know-- ain't his fault because people with (R) by their name can do no wrong and their sh*t don't stink :???: :roll: :wink: :(

Our problems are the fault of everybody in Washington, D and R. Some are more to blame than others; Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi come to mind.

But what does any of this have to do with morons calling themselves "progressive" when they are actually taking this society backwards? They should be called "Regressives".
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This article says much the same as the Repub panel discussion I watched the other day- if Repubs/conservatives don't get past the denial of all the screwups of GW and Repubs for the past 8 years- they will never be able to figure out how to fix the party, bring back the many voters they lost this year to the Democrats, plus the new generations they are totally losing- and the party will stand no chance of recovery....

As was brought up numerous times- Republicans were given their chance- 12 years control of Congress and 8 years of the White House- and they failed horribly...

An example was the conservative reporter for Political that brought up that Republicans should now be leading the charge to regulate, put oversight over, and police these Fatcat crooks that bankrupt us- rather than the stonewalling they are still putting up....They either evolve with the times and changing conditions or they go the way of the dinosaurs....

And as one Wall Street banker said- her daughter supported Obama and is now a Democrat, because she can't believe the debt GW and the Republican Congress has put on her (and every taxpayer of the country) thru their borrow and wild spending practices- and would rather accept the Dems possibility of higher taxes because she believes it will be spent to build America...

The GOP: Evolve or die
Posted by Susan J. Demas | Analysis | Capitol Chronicles November 20, 2008 22:06PM

The party of personal responsibility is having an awfully hard time with that concept after the election.

Listening to Republicans nowadays is like booking time with a colicky baby. I haven't heard so much whining and crying since my daughter was 3 months old.


Oh, and have I mentioned they're angry? Really steamed, like savaging anyone who suggests they chill as godless socialists who want nonstop gay sex and baby killing for the next eight years (I think I hear my e-mail now). I look forward to adding them to my folder of paranoid messages that Barack Obama won't be inaugurated after all because there is *PROOF THAT HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE WAS FORGED.* And the threats from Republicans that they just might be moving to Canada.

There's little time for self-reflection in a pity party. And right now, the right is rapturously licking its wounds, sounding more than a little like the Dems in 1980.

There's scant acknowledgement that Obama ran a stellar campaign and Democrats have clearly become the party for moderate voters. No one wants to dwell on the fact that Obama won by 7 percent nationally, when George W. Bush topped out at 3 percent in '04 after losing the popular vote in 2000. And please don't bring up that Obama won nine Bush states, some like Nevada and New Mexico by double digits.

Ignore the state-of-the-art get-out-the-vote drive that made W's look like amateur hour. And pay no attention to the 200,000 tearful supporters in Grant Park, the collective world adulation and reports that Obama could draw a record-shattering 4 million to his inauguration.

No, it's not so much that the Dems won this election, but circumstances conspired so the GOP lost. Really, how could Republicans win with the economy tanking, Bush's legacy and the malevolent media?

It's never their fault. The country is still with them, despite irrefutable proof to the contrary with the presidency and two houses of Congress going very blue.

The clinical definition of this, of course, is denial.

Republicans still insist Obama would have lost without Wall Street going into a tailspin. John McCain was leading in many polls until then, which they attribute to their favorite moose-shooting mama, Sarah Palin. That ignores the fact this was a post-convention bounce and the first time the Arizona senator had posted a consistent lead.

While the economy is surely a tricky issue with a Republican in the White House, the fact is that McCain both lost on this issue due to his wild mood swings and stunts, and Obama won it with his cool demeanor that settled voters' frayed nerves. He also connected far better to the middle class.

As for the current president, he surely was an albatross, which was precisely why right-wingers were whining from the get-go how unfair it was to tie Bush to McCain. Why? They knew it was a powerful message and worried it would work.

Of course, it didn't have to. McCain differs from Bush on issues ranging from global warming to campaign finance and has a much more bipartisan disposition. But by veering to the right to shore up the base, he made those Bush-McCain morphs seem plausible and unseemly.

And there is a certain irony in Republicans ranting that the president isn't a true conservative anyway, what with his big-government Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind. Well, kiddies, most of you voted for them at the time. Talking heads used to screech that anyone who would dare question our commander-in-chief at a time of war should be charged with treason.

Bush's only real problem with the right is that his poll numbers plummeted.

And finally there's the media, or shall I say, the worldwide conspiracy to put Obama in the Oval Office. Look, it's a fact that Obama won a landslide in newspaper endorsements and won over a number of columnists, many of them conservatives like Chris Buckley.

I don't think this election with its nonstop horserace coverage was a high point for investigative journalism into either candidate, although Obama came out slightly ahead in this regard. There were more negative stories about McCain in general, but that's what happens when your campaign is wracked with infighting and you're losing.

But the idea that the media can determine elections is laughable. If that's the case, we wouldn't be hemorrhaging red ink, because everyone would want a piece of the all-powerful press. Our sales pitch would be devastatingly simple: We can make presidents, you know.
Here's the bottom line for Republicans: You lost. Own it. Learn from it. Stop focusing on what you can't control and fix the fundamental problem - you're not connecting with voters like Obama did. Your no-tax, social-issues-on-steroids message has grown stale.

Ronald Reagan hasn't ruled for 20 years and yet you're still looking back. Demographics can become destiny and you're losing badly with key groups like young voters, Asians and Latinos.

Change is hard for conservatives, for obvious definitional reasons. But the truth is, in the kill-or-be-killed world of politics, those who don't evolve - becoming stronger and leaner - die.

So far Republicans are resisting such heresy. Evolution is just a theory, after all.


Susan J. Demas is a political analyst for Michigan Information & Research Service. She can be reached at [email protected]
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
funny thing is, in Canada our "socialist" "crap" system of health care costs less per capita, than the US health care system!

What is needed is a fine balance.

Same as the lending system, I guess!
 

VanC

Well-known member
badaxemoo said:
Not only because they are philosophically against it and we'd hate to become a hellhole like Canada, Sweden, Norway or any other number of industrialized nations.

They need to block healthcare reform to save their party!

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/11/13/blocking-obamas-health-plan-is-key-to-the-gops-survival/

Got to love those guys over at the Cato Institute.

Is it now being run by Cato Kaelin or butler from the Pink Panther movies?

I wouldn't be too hard on the Cato Institute, friend. They are one of the true non-partisan "think tanks" around, IMO. Unlike the Center for American Progress on the left, or the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute on the right, the Cato Institute is hard to pin down.

Yes, they are for free markets and limited government, hence their strong opposition to any kind of nationalized health care. But they also push for liberal immigration policies and gay rights, and they are firmly against military intervention overseas in almost all cases. They have a little something for everyone, so to speak, and a little something for everyone to dislike, depending on how you look at things.

They have been very critical of the Bush Administration, especially when it comes to the Iraq War and his abuses of executive power. If you look at the big picture, it's hard to put them in either the liberal or conservative category, which I think is a good thing.
 

badaxemoo

Well-known member
VanC said:
I wouldn't be too hard on the Cato Institute, friend. They are one of the true non-partisan "think tanks" around, IMO. Unlike the Center for American Progress on the left, or the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute on the right, the Cato Institute is hard to pin down.

Yes, they are for free markets and limited government, hence their strong opposition to any kind of nationalized health care. But they also push for liberal immigration policies and gay rights, and they are firmly against military intervention overseas in almost all cases. They have a little something for everyone, so to speak, and a little something for everyone to dislike, depending on how you look at things.

They have been very critical of the Bush Administration, especially when it comes to the Iraq War and his abuses of executive power. If you look at the big picture, it's hard to put them in either the liberal or conservative category, which I think is a good thing.

I agree that they don't fit neatly into any liberal or conservative box - aren't they primarily libertarian in philosophy?

I'd take a dozen Cato Institutes in a deal to get rid of either the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Insitute (even though Cato seems to be in line with them on economic issues).

But I really have a beef about their support for social security privatization and denial of global warming.
 
Top