There we go. My point was "If we use this criteria" then we "get this result".
So, you agree that the original criteria for the thread was simply incorrect then. Good!
Lets Compare Conservataive Nations with Liberal ones.
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
So, you agree that the original criteria for the thread was simply incorrect then. Good!
I was responding to Dano's post, but basically agree with what you're saying.
I'm sure you'll be right there to remind Dano of this on his post du jour talking about socialist countries, or communist countries, or whatever other ridiculous comparison he is trying to make. Because you've been strangely absent on those, though you were quick to jump on this thread.
That wouldn't be ideological, would it, Damo? Must just be coincidence...
There are plenty of people to jump on Dano, there are relatively few that will do so with Jarod or another lefty.
So, in part it is. However, long ago, on a board with more of a white background that we all met on, you would often see me attacking the larger "conservative" group with such things as "Formal Declaration" for wars, and even such things as "Gay Marriage is cool".
So, while it is nice to see you agree that the original premise was flawed, usually if I don't step in there is no opposition and threads like this turn into. "Boy do I agree!" from every lefty.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
Fascism embodies having a strong government regulating as well, it wasn't an accident that National Socialism (Nazis and others), which was born out of and implemented plenty of leftwing ideas, get switched interchangeably with fascism.
Conservatism does not advocate going down any road in itself, it is a philosophy of embracing tradition or what is, not what can be.
And if you look at it from a practical sense, that is backed up, we see less and less religion and traditionalism but more government growing.
Again if you wish to convince there is a stopping point, than please simply define one (ie: after nationalized healthcare, government will grow no more). Otherwise resign yourself to the slow flow of ever more government and where that cannot fail to lead to.
"Conservatism does not advocate going down any road in itself, it is a philosophy of embracing tradition or what is, not what can be."
LOL
Anyone who knows anything about the experimental playground of Latin and Central America, complete with Milton Friedman's personal involvment with murderous dictators, knows that this is the most laughable statement the moron Dano is likely to ever make, and that is saying something.
LOL
Anyone who knows anything about the experimental playground of Latin and Central America, complete with Milton Friedman's personal involvment with murderous dictators, knows that this is the most laughable statement the moron Dano is likely to ever make, and that is saying something.
"Nationalized healthcare" is often a misnomer for proposals where gov't legislates certain priorities for healthcare, but does not RUN healthcare, or even come close to it.
It's all BS scare tactics. To be honest, I haven't seen a healthcare plan yet that I like, but they're not "Socialism." You have proved time & again that you don't really know what Socialism is.
It's all BS scare tactics. To be honest, I haven't seen a healthcare plan yet that I like, but they're not "Socialism." You have proved time & again that you don't really know what Socialism is.
Giving government money to corporations in an almost gauranteed monopoly situation while doing nothing at all about the pricing is not my idea of a "plan", and it isn't "free market" any more than it is "socialism". While it is capatalistic, when a government gives corporations money it is definitely capitalism, but not "free market" or anywhere near a "libertarian" idea.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
It is the road to Socialism. A free market means that some people will shop, compare and could reject health insurance. With government paying for private healthcare, what is the incentive for private healthcare to charge less or not charge more? After all it's not like the end user, the consumer will care because it is government that is footing the bill.
In order to control costs due to that lack of how a real free market would control costs (ie: consumers shopping elsewhere when they deem rates are too high), the government really has no choice but to take over or I suppose they could set price rates.
If they choose to set price rates, well we all see what happens there with power companies in Cali having their prices set by the Dem congress. They have not as much incentive to produce more or to keep supply up and service suffers worse. Which inevitably the same lefties than just decry the usual profit, "free" market and just have government take over anyway.
Again, it's not a question of if, it's a question of how many, as in how many steps will it take.
Id list them as social conservatives.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Healthcare is an extremely inflexible product. People need to go to the doctor and will pay whatever they can to get in there. It's not something that the free market can improve. Clearly you should have learned this simple concept in economics.
TheDanold
Unimatrix
And economically Liberal, just about all those countries you listed are way down on the economic freedom index:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom#Index_of_Economic_Freedom_2
Iran is like 2nd last in the world
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Denmark, New Zeland, and Britian are higher on the economic freedom list than America!
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Ah, but they're right on the road to socialism, I'm sure it'll happen someday. It's like, unviersal healthcare today, and tommorrow, the government will own everything!
TheDanold
Unimatrix
If American passed universal healthcare then we would slide further down the list. Do you really contend that FORCING people to pay for insurance makes their economic freedom higher?
The reason America slid to where it is passing more regulations, Sarbanes-Oxley, forcing people to pay for the pill bill, etc... We are down because of more leftism.
And? So, you ignore any other context at all? The original premise is simply incorrect.
I'd say the USSR was "socially conservative" as well, if you didn't repeat their specifically programmed mantra there were laws to be applied.
Authoritarian does not necessarily a "conservative" state make.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
We should have generous welfare and few regulations.
Agnosticus_Caesar
Fuck You Too
The more accurate assessment:
US so-called "Conservatives" have been fiscally irresponsible, and socially extremist.
US so-called "Liberals" have been fiscally moderate, and socially moderate.
This is why I dislike the right wing.
If the libertarians could get their house in order, they'd get my vote.
US so-called "Conservatives" have been fiscally irresponsible, and socially extremist.
US so-called "Liberals" have been fiscally moderate, and socially moderate.
This is why I dislike the right wing.
If the libertarians could get their house in order, they'd get my vote.