Revamping the Republican Strategy
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
This is just a straight up lie. There was never anything in the GOP platform about a blanket ban on abortion. A constitutional amendment would require 2/3 of congress (which they'll never have), a president willing to sign it (Romney wouldn't have) and ratification by 3/4 of the states (not happening either).
But again, the point is, you people pick this stuff up and run with it! You bash all conservatives over the head repeatedly with it, and the conservatives KNOW you're going to, and STILL have idiots like Akin, saying stuff they shouldn't say. It's an issue that could be put to rest relatively easily by conservatives, by simply deferring the decision to the states and people, as the constitution calls for.
apple0154
MEOW
Whether it’s the Federal Government or the States curtailing people’s freedom what difference does it make?
Dictate: to prescribe or lay down authoritatively or peremptorily; command unconditionally (dic.com)
There is a difference between “gays can marry” compared to “gays must marry”. There is a difference between “a woman can get an abortion” compared to “a woman must get an abortion”. One is dictating. The other is supporting freedom. Liberals support freedom. It is the conservatives, whether at the State or Federal level, who want to dictate social policy, who want to curtail freedom.
Freedom is more than the specific rights mentioned in the Constitution and that’s another area the conservatives have difficulty understanding. The conservatives on the Supreme Court continually refer to “there is no constitutional right for this or that.” We saw that argued with abortion.
In a supposedly free country rather than a person’s right having to be specifically included in the Constitution the denial of a right should have to be specifically included in the Constitution. The default position is freedom. Or, at least, should be. Rather than trying to find out what clause/article abortion can fall under the operating procedure should be what clause/article prohibits such freedom.
That is the main difference between liberals and conservatives. The conservative considers everything illegal (not a freedom) unless specifically stated it’s legal (a right) whereas the liberal considers everything legal (a right) except what is specifically deemed illegal (not a freedom).
You wrote, “Again, small government conservatism doesn't need to argue about these things, we should return power to the states and people to decide the issues suitable to them and their communities, and it shouldn't be mandated by federal government.”
The conservatives would love nothing better than to have the right to curtail people’s freedoms without federal interference. We’ve seen that down through history especially concerning segregation.
As for you writing, “Can Liberals complain? ALWAYS! But they will continue to use these social issues against conservatives to divide and conquer conservatism, as long as conservatives allow them to do so.”
Of course liberals will continue to bring up social issues. It’s all about freedom. Why is there a law against……? Why is ……… prohibited? Again, freedom should be the default position and let individuals decide for themselves.
However, there are situations where it has been shown allowing individuals to decide for themselves has not been successful. Retirement planning, for example. After witnessing the elderly in dire poverty the government had to step in and implement SS. The same with health care. Leaving it up to individuals has resulted in needless deaths to the tune of 45,000/yr. Government involvement became necessary.
If one wants to determine which party/philosophy, liberal or conservative, is anti-freedom it’s simply a matter of looking at which one wants to restrict people. It’s not all that complicated or mysterious and people are becoming more aware every day. Considering the majority of people voted for Obama after looking at his last 4 years in charge it must be due, in large part, to his ideas and beliefs. Ideas and beliefs that are the opposite of Republican/conservative beliefs. No amount of twisting and manipulating and wrangling and finagling on the conservative’s part is going to change that.
People want to be free to make choices (gay marriage, abortion, etc) and they also want government involvement in things they have difficulty carrying out (saving for retirement, health care, etc). No mystery here.
apple0154
MEOW
Oh, Dix. Health care was first brought up in 1912! One hundred years ago! The private sector had 100 years to find a solution. Nobody was working on a solution. Nobody gave a damn. That's why the Repubs were shut out. Government involvement is the only solution.
As for, "Just disregard the countless success stories that have risen from abject and hopeless poverty. Even though they number in the millions, they are insignificant to the liberal", that's not true. Success stories are great but understand that for every one million success stories there are many, many more poverty stories and those are the ones who deserve help.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Yes, people had been working on solutions, many of them, and both republican and democrat people worked together. From the first public hospitals to indigent care laws, to the Pill Bill passed by President Bush and a Republican congress. All kinds of health care reforms through the years. If you believe something else, you're dreaming.
Again, government involvement is fine for government, but "health care" requires someone to administer the care, it can't happen by government, it takes a person doing the actual work. You aren't entitled to my labor, it's not your constitutional right to take my labor. So how is "health care" going to be given by the government, when it's not theirs to give?
Why do they deserve help? What did they do to deserve what I earned? Do I deserve part of what you own? How about letting me come into your home and help myself to what I need? I'm just as deserving as anyone else. No one deserves anything they didn't earn. No one deserves things that belong to other people.
apple0154
MEOW
Ah, yes. The Pill Bill. Government helping people to purchase their medication but refusing to negotiate prices with the drug companies.
The government offers to pay for a service and a doctor has the option to provide that service for the price the government is willing to pay. It's no different than a village wanting a town square. The town has a budget and takes bids for the job. Contractors who want more don't get the job.
The same thing is happening in Canada. Some doctors want to work privately and charge what they want. That's fine, however, when times are slow and they don't have enough private patients they want to take patients at the government rate and the government is saying, "no, no and no." The doctor tells the government patient there is a waiting list but if they go through his private clinic he will do the procedure right away. Talk about a scam. Either they're on board with the government plan or they shouldn't get any government patients. The government has just as much right to hire a doctor as they do any other contractor.
Take blood tests. One can pay $150 and get a blood draw right away or wait an hour at a government clinic. Most people grab a newspaper and read for an hour and save $150.
They deserve help because that's what societies do. People work together. That is how mankind progresses. From families to communities to a country to nations working together everyone progresses.
Who owns the national parks? Who owns the navy? Who owns the White House, etc, etc? If the government is the people then the people, the citizens, own the national parks and the navy, etc, right? So, when someone requires a medical procedure and they can't afford it can they sell their share of a national park? A few items from the navy? Surely a person has the right to sell what they own in order to receive lifesaving medical care.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Again, because you are bull headed, this thing we call "health care" is two words, the second word is "care" and if you bother to look the word up, you will find that it involves an action performed by some person. We currently have medical professionals who work for the government, who could provide care as part of their job with the government, but there are nowhere near enough of them to perform all the care for all the people. We use them mainly to care for individuals who served their country in the military, and they are adequate for that purpose. However, the vast majority of medical care professionals, do not work for the government, they work for private enterprise. The government doesn't own private enterprise, therefore, the government can't use them to administer the care. Here's where you have a huge problem, the government simply can't provide free care for 350 million people. It doesn't matter what laws congress passes, or how much you rail on and on about this, that is just a fact of the matter.
What you and other liberals continue to do, is make a perfectly sane argument for modern slavery. Just as America once needed government to ensure labor for the cotton growers, they now need government to ensure labor for health care. And you're okay with this argument, because you believe we can't live without this. Cotton was our #1 export item, without it, we would be ruined financially. Therefore, men in robes determined that black slaves were not really people, so as to find the means for getting cotton out of the fields. Today, you have determined health care is something we can't live without, and with congress and the court, you have essentially ruled that health care providers are not people, as a means to provide the services they render. Many people were opposed to slavery, they said it could work another way, the cotton growers could actually pay for the labor, and it wouldn't destroy us financially. This idea was called "abolition" and it was fought vigorously by people who make the exact same argument you are making for free government health care.
Tell me, is your sheet Large or XL?
What you and other liberals continue to do, is make a perfectly sane argument for modern slavery. Just as America once needed government to ensure labor for the cotton growers, they now need government to ensure labor for health care. And you're okay with this argument, because you believe we can't live without this. Cotton was our #1 export item, without it, we would be ruined financially. Therefore, men in robes determined that black slaves were not really people, so as to find the means for getting cotton out of the fields. Today, you have determined health care is something we can't live without, and with congress and the court, you have essentially ruled that health care providers are not people, as a means to provide the services they render. Many people were opposed to slavery, they said it could work another way, the cotton growers could actually pay for the labor, and it wouldn't destroy us financially. This idea was called "abolition" and it was fought vigorously by people who make the exact same argument you are making for free government health care.
Tell me, is your sheet Large or XL?
Bfgrn
New member
Absurd is not an adequate word to describe this post and your truly stupid line of thinking. Comparing modern doctors and health care providers to slaves? Seriously Dixie??
Better look up the word 'slave'. A slave is wholly owned. There is no pay, wage or monetary compensation that comes with being a slave.
Health care is already a right. No one is turned away from an emergency room. And no doctor or health care provider treats that person for free. They are compensated. If the person can't pay for the care provided, WE PAY for it.
You talk about medical professionals who work for the government, i.e. military doctors. Not only is health care already a right for every American, it is even a right for every enemy of America. Triage doctors on the front lines will work just as hard to save the life of an enemy combatant as an American soldier.
You are officially a MORON.
apple0154
MEOW
Your slave argument makes no sense. Are the doctors who look after the veterans slaves?
The government is able to ensure adequate medical coverage for everyone. It has nothing to do with the number of people. We've been over this before. Countries that have a population of 30 million have government health care and countries that have 60 million have government health care. How is that possible? I'd guess the country with a population of 60 million has twice as many doctors as a country with 30 million. (Just a guess, mind you.)
Furthermore, as more and more people receive yearly check-ups and illnesses/diseases are caught early less and less doctor care will be required. It's a lot easier to take someone's blood pressure and prescribe beta blockers than to look after a heart attack victim. Government health care can be inplemented and it will be implemented. Obama has spoken!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I hear of no monetary compensation when it comes to free government health care either.
Again, health care is NOT a right, unless you advocate we reintroduce slavery. CARE requires the work of someone else, it simply can't be our "right" to have something produced by someone else.
I mentioned medical professionals that work for the government, I never agreed health care was a right. Our government hires and pays medical professionals to deal with interests of the government, like caring for medical needs of veterans or working triage in combat.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
CARE still requires the action of some other person. It doesn't matter how easy it is to pick cotton.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
People like you are the reason the Republicans lost.
Paul supporters didn't sit out the election. They voted. They're not like you.
They're not going to vote for a Marxist. Especially when they have a choice. (Gary Johnson)
Mitt Romney isn't a choice for freedom loving costitutional people like Libartarians. Nor is any of the other choices who ran in the primaries, accept Paul.
Get over it and except that you lost, and you're going to keep losing.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Did Gary Johnson win? Did he get ANY electoral votes? Was he even mentioned in the election night reporting of votes? Mitt Romney lost, Barack Obama won, you and Gary Johnson were irrelevant.
It's okay though, you keep on clinging to your libertarian conservative ideology, but know that evangelicals will keep clinging to theirs, establishment elites will keep clinging to theirs, and the DNC will continue to march in lockstep to defeat conservatives. As long as you are going to defiantly insist that your ideas are the only ideas worth considering, expect to remain a political irrelevant, and expect to continue being governed by Marxist Socialists.
Liberty
Libertarian Minded
Mitt Romney is a Marxist.
He's not a choice for liberty minded people.
Evangelicals are some of the first to trade liberty for security, and are a big reason why so many voters hate the republican party.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
That's funny, do you also think he amassed his personal fortune practicing Marxist philosophy? When he turned the Olympics around, from $2mil in the red to a money making project, did he do that with Marxist policies?
Mitt Romney is a populist moderate republican. You can say he's not conservative, and when it's politically popular to not be, you would be correct. You could say he is a liberal, and when it's politically expedient to be one, he has been. Populists do that. But I see no evidence in his political views that lead me to believe he is a Marxist.
What you are doing is using "Marxist" to attack Romney, probably because you perceive Obama being "attacked" when people call him a Marxist. The problem is, Obama really IS a Marxist, and you will find out over the next four years what that is all about. You and the rest of us are about to get a real-time education on Marxist Socialism.
And Obama was a BETTER choice?
Maybe so, but you don't have enough voters to win elections over Democrats without them. I don't care if you don't like that, and want to lash out and disagree with it, what I am saying is the truth. I'm personally not crazy about many various strains of conservatism, but I am not so stupid as to believe the world will one day wake up and magically see things my way. I am realistic enough to understand, conservatives have to stop dividing ourselves among each other and attacking the "kind" of conservatism we don't like, and start trying to find mutual connecting and defining issues.
I agree that "Liberty" should be one of those areas we can come to agreement on, but where we seem to run into trouble is when we start to define what "Liberty" means, and what it doesn't mean. You have a completely different view than others, and what you believe is "liberty" might not be what someone else thinks. The one thing we should agree on as conservatives, the Marxist ideology has absolutely NO place for Liberty, regardless of how it's defined.
apple0154
MEOW
Care requires that someone be paid for their service in caring for others. If that's what you're saying I agree. The government pays them the same way government pays other private contractors.
Governments, in the general term (State, town councils, etc), are required to maintain the roads. They don't abduct people to do the work. They hire people and pay them. The same applies to doctors and other health personnel. I don't know from where you get the slavery idea.
They haven't evolved. They're not called knuckle-dragging neanderthals for nothing.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
How can the government pay for anything when the government doesn't earn income? You mean that the PEOPLE pay for it, through taxation. But how do the taxpayers fund complete health care for 350 million people? The simple answer is, they can't. States aren't "required" to maintain roads or do anything else. The people of a state may vote to have the state hire people to do roads or whatever, but the state also doesn't earn an income, it relies on the PEOPLE to pay for things.
The slavery idea is simple, really. You advocate "care" as a right you are entitled to. I maintain that "care" is the product of another man's labor, and something you aren't entitled to. The same argument you are making, was made by people who wanted to keep slavery as a "necessary evil" and rejected the notion that the labor of men belonged to them, and no one else was entitled to it.