• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Republican Party has become a Radical Party

Dragonfly said:
My perception of the "radicalization" of the republican/conservative front is based mainly on the consistent attempts over the last decade or so to combine religion and politics.
Click to expand...

That combination was just a tactic employed by the savvy elite in the GOP who recognized the basic fact that the conservative voting bloc is (there's no nice way to say it) gullible to the max and hence easily swayed by the stale religious rhetoric propogated by evangelicals.

The elite correctly deduced that if they could wrap their agenda in Xtian mysticism and rah-rahs, the gullible flock (conservatives) would endorse it.
 
The President's mistake was that he didn't initially insist that Obamacare to be paid out of general tax revenue.

The Republicans would have countered with the compulsory insurance plan - an idea that when all is said and done, originated with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Obama could have eventually compromised and accepted the Republican plan - the GOP would have then gone on to tout Obamacare as a great victory based on conservative principles!
 
Last edited:
jgarden47 said:
The President's mistake was that he didn't initially insist that Obamacare to be paid out of general tax revenue.

The Republicans would have countered with the compulsory insurance plan - an idea that when all is said and done, originated with the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Obama could have eventually compromised and accepted the Republican plan - the GOP would have then gone on to tout Obamacare as a great victory based on conservative principles!
Click to expand...

I'm sure they didn't do it that way because the Republicans would have raised holy hell over their no-tax pledges.

But irony-of-all-ironies -- Paul Ryan essentially put an even stricter health insurance mandate in his latest budget. Only, like a typical Republican, it isn't paid for. What he did was include a refundable tax credit for people who purchase health insurance. That means that people who don't buy insurance are -- in effect -- penalized by paying higher taxes than everyone else. Except in Ryan's case, the penalty isn't a paltry $600-900; it's over $3,000.
 
obvious Child said:
This only works if we are allowed to withhold life savings medical procedures. Again, you seem to be ignoring the same problem that marine is. We don't leave people to die simply because they lack insurance. Since that won't change, we either force insurance or we suck it up and live with our socialized costs of insurance. I don't see how the later one is conservative, especially since it is redistribution of wealth. If it's bad to do it via taxes, it should be bad to do it via healthcare. Furthermore, what is amusing to me is watching allegedly free market conservative bash the ACA for enacting state free market insurance exchanges where individuals get to pick the competitive insurance plan they want. Free market compeition is bad apparently when a Democrat proposes it.Ron Paul's medical vision only works because he's willing to let people die in the streets because they lack insurance. I don't know of any reasonable mainstream Democrat or Republican that will back him on that, not even his son.
Click to expand...

Very inaccurate and MSNBC like depiction of Ron Paul. Why would a doctor, or for that matter someone running for office, propose what you say he does? The answer is he wouldn't. Ron Paul's medical plan is, without a doubt, the best of the available candidates and the incumbent's health care plans. Before making that claim, I suggest you read up on his actual plan.
Health Care
 
Me thinks...the Republican Party has pissed in its peanut butter.
 
solletica said:
Nuff said. romney is winning not because he's the GOP voters' preferred nominee. He's far from it because he's a historical lefty on all social issues. He's winning solely because the opposition has failed to thoroughly expose his record in MA. They aren't throwing the punches they need to.

The GOP has always been a radikal party.
Click to expand...

If you mean radical like, creating the EPA, or proposing a personal mandate on health insurance, I guess you are correct. But it is only recently that the party has been hijacked by Radical right wingers that wish to redefine America by creating a oligarcy of the wealthy while cutting everything that made America great.
 
TurtleDude said:
how exactly are we going to get people too irresponsible to pay for most things to pay for Obama care's mandate? It will just result in people like you and me being taxed to pay for them
Click to expand...

Your point doesn't make much sense. Furthermore the ACA does have at least a hint of coercive power with its penalty based on income. What you seem to be ignoring is even if the ACA got only 10 million more people on insurance, that's 10 million FEWER uninsured your premiums and mine are being garnished to pay for. Sure it's not a complete end to free ridership, but it's better then 10 million more uninsured taking our money.

that is what I want ended. you are not going to be able to mandate some sort of insurance burden on everyone. never going to happen with today's enablement mindset
Click to expand...

So the best choice is simply to not reduce the total uninsured? How does that make any sense? Which is a better outcome to you, having the responsible people pay for 40 million uninsured, or having the responsible people that existed prior to the ACA now bolstered by 10 million more covered under the ACA paying for only 30 million uninsured?

Right now you kind of sound like a certain poster who argued that gay marriage should be legal but sided with banning it because he couldn't stand having civil unions as a partial step. Just because you can't get everything you want doesn't mean you go squarely into the camp of the group you detest the most.
 
Billy the Kid said:
As I stated, whoever is the Repub nominee, will get my vote. I want Obama out of office.

You have a vote to do wth as you please, yes?
Click to expand...

It's just amusing watching Republicans completely repudiate their alleged beliefs in Conservatism.

Free ridership is okay! Soak the responsible! All because I hate Obama!

You'd love Romney considering your stances like that.

Romney's HC was a state HC system, yes? That would mean that the majority of Mass voters wanted the HC bill, yes?

I could be wrong, but I believe the majority of US voters don't want Obamacare. They want changes to how HC is handle in the country, but not what has been forced on them.
Click to expand...

What use is a poll asking about approval when the people being polled have relatively little understanding of the subject of the poll?

Furthermore, of the few items within the ACA that the public seems to know about, they strongly approve of. It's gotten to the point that the GOP, if they don't want to commit suicide would have to enact many of the SAME policies of the ACA in any repeal and replace.

Reinstate life time limits? Good luck with that.
Revoke insurance for all 25 and 26 year old full time students? Good luck with that.
Donut hole comes back? Good luck with that.
Pre-existing condition? Good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
If anything I think the Democrats have become more radical. Obama has been increasingly turning into a partisan hack, and has now even tried bashing the Supreme Court and calling it "judicial activism" if they don't uphold his healthcare mandate. He's constantly attacking Republicans like a hack and really isn't the unifying leader he promised to be.

The Republicans have a more moderate guy currently winning in the primary, no "radical" legislation has been passed nor has it been pushed for. I think the executive branch has become far more partisan than it should and power hungry.
Click to expand...

That has got to be a joke.

Obama is still nothing more then a Bush Clone, who was in many ways a liberal. Furthermore, the Democrats have offered up serious offers to cut entitlements. Every single GOP candidate for President turned down the 10 dollars in spending cuts to 1 dollar in taxes. That alone blows your notion that the Democrats are more radical. On top of that US defense spending could cut $150 billion and we'd still be spending MORE then we did in 2002. And that's not even accounting for off the books Iraq and Afghanistan. On top of that craziness, the Ryan plan which is little more then Political Fraud is being championed as the way back to the black despite the ugly fact that austerity by itself never actually works. The best part is that the GOP is the largest block calling for the Fed to raise interest to stop the flood of inflation. There has yet to be a country that coupled austerity with high interest rates that got back to prosperity in history. The GOP is essentially making up their own history to suit their political narrative. Romney flat out said that if all you are doing is cutting, that's going to slow the economy down. Yet he's backing this fraud plan. Honestly, that's the same thing that Hoover did when he sign the tariff act that killed 14% of the US economy.

If anything, the Democrats for the most part have moved squarely to the center. Obama's dead on the money that Reagan would be drummed out of the GOP so fast his eyes would spin. The Democrats never enacted a blatantly unconstitutional program to spy on American citizens in the US. As for the more "moderate" guy. No one likes Mitt. And the GOP has been searching for months for an alternative. Intratrade right now has Mitt losing the election.

As for no "radical" legislation, The National defense authorization act allows for indefinite detentions of America citizens. That's not radical to you? How is cutting money for women's medical services in the lie of savings money not radical? On that point the GOP has gone beyond radical and into the truly insane when it comes to the budget. There is absolutely no way we can balance our budget on cuts alone. The amount of money that will leave the economy will have a massive effect upon spending and jobs sending us back to a recession almost immediately. And the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves is absolute bull****. There is absolutely no correlation between tax rates and economic activity in the past 40 years. We had outrageously high rates with good economies and bad. And we had historically low rates with good economies and bad. Anyone who can do basic math should be appalled at what the GOP has become.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Very inaccurate and MSNBC like depiction of Ron Paul. Why would a doctor, or for that matter someone running for office, propose what you say he does? The answer is he wouldn't. Ron Paul's medical plan is, without a doubt, the best of the available candidates and the incumbent's health care plans. Before making that claim, I suggest you read up on his actual plan.
Health Care
Click to expand...

Was that a reply? Or a joke?

Paul's answer for people who can't afford insurance is charitable care. If that actually worked, we wouldn't see people fundraising to pay for the medical costs of people who need treatment now. Charitable hospitals are themselves limited in capacity to serve the masses serving only a small group of people every year. To think that they would serve as the backbone of the uninsured is either retarded or completely delusional. Paul's website is long on claims and very, very, very short on details. He claims drugs prices will come down.....because drug prices will come down. That's almost as good as Ryan saying he'll cut tax loop holes by naming exactly NONE he'll cut.

Paul's plan requires us to let people die in the streets.

If you disagree, provide a reason why. And something more tangible then his short on facts, long on rhetoric website.
 
obvious Child said:
Was that a reply? Or a joke?

Paul's answer for people who can't afford insurance is charitable care. If that actually worked, we wouldn't see people fundraising to pay for the medical costs of people who need treatment now. Charitable hospitals are themselves limited in capacity to serve the masses serving only a small group of people every year. To think that they would serve as the backbone of the uninsured is either retarded or completely delusional. Paul's website is long on claims and very, very, very short on details. He claims drugs prices will come down.....because drug prices will come down. That's almost as good as Ryan saying he'll cut tax loop holes by naming exactly NONE he'll cut.

Paul's plan requires us to let people die in the streets.

If you disagree, provide a reason why. And something more tangible then his short on facts, long on rhetoric website.
Click to expand...

The point is, under Paul's plan, healthcare costs would be lower due to a free market approach to health care. This would result in it not hurting doctors to treat patients for free, when needed. It would also allow charitable hospitals to expand their scope and admissions because it is more affordable to do so. I truly believe we would be surprised at how compassionate we could be towards one another once the "safety nets" provided by the gov't are removed. If the gov't isn't taking all of your money to spend on Medicare, Obamacare, etc, then you would have more money to put into charities if you chose to do so. As it is, I believe people look at these charities and figure they already have enough taken by the gov't so why give more. It would also improve the quality of health care because doctors would know that they have to perform or they lose out. I won't be able to debate this with you for a couple of weeks. I'm off to Africa on "business". I'll continue this with you when I return.
 
MarineTpartier said:
The point is, under Paul's plan, healthcare costs would be lower due to a free market approach to health care. This would result in it not hurting doctors to treat patients for free, when needed. It would also allow charitable hospitals to expand their scope and admissions because it is more affordable to do so. I truly believe we would be surprised at how compassionate we could be towards one another once the "safety nets" provided by the gov't are removed. If the gov't isn't taking all of your money to spend on Medicare, Obamacare, etc, then you would have more money to put into charities if you chose to do so. As it is, I believe people look at these charities and figure they already have enough taken by the gov't so why give more. It would also improve the quality of health care because doctors would know that they have to perform or they lose out. I won't be able to debate this with you for a couple of weeks. I'm off to Africa on "business". I'll continue this with you when I return.
Click to expand...

And so what is that history of charitable care?
 
MarineTpartier said:
The point is, under Paul's plan, healthcare costs would be lower due to a free market approach to health care.
Click to expand...

But that still does not address my arguments.

This would result in it not hurting doctors to treat patients for free, when needed. It would also allow charitable hospitals to expand their scope and admissions because it is more affordable to do so. I truly believe we would be surprised at how compassionate we could be towards one another once the "safety nets" provided by the gov't are removed.
Click to expand...

Then you are living in a fantasy world. Why would it be more affordable for charities to expand their scope? You make a lot of claims but you present absolutely nothing to support them. And the notion that we'd be more compassionate runs against thousands of years of documented brutality humans show each other. Safety nets exist partially because humans are individualist greedy people who care little for the sufferings of others.

If the gov't isn't taking all of your money to spend on Medicare, Obamacare, etc, then you would have more money to put into charities if you chose to do so.
Click to expand...

Or say screw him, I'm buying some product. Which do you think is more likely to happen? Furthermore, FICA taxes are not high at all, especially compared to how Europeans fund their welfare programs. The notion that government is "taking all of your money" to fund healthcare is completely ludicrous and suggests to me you haven't even bothered to look at your own paystub.

As it is, I believe people look at these charities and figure they already have enough taken by the gov't so why give more. It would also improve the quality of health care because doctors would know that they have to perform or they lose out. I won't be able to debate this with you for a couple of weeks. I'm off to Africa on "business". I'll continue this with you when I return.
Click to expand...

You do realize your entire argument is "because I say so?"
 
winston53660 said:
And so what is that history of charitable care?
Click to expand...

Not good.

If charitable care actually worked in the fantasy Marine thinks it does, we wouldn't have so many people without basic care not to mention seeing regular fundraising to pay for healthcare bills. Charity care has existed for hundreds of years. It never provided enough service for everyone when insurance was limited to ships and cargo. The notion it could do it now is just delusional.
 
obvious Child said:
It's just amusing watching Republicans completely repudiate their alleged beliefs in Conservatism.

Free ridership is okay! Soak the responsible! All because I hate Obama!

You'd love Romney considering your stances like that.



What use is a poll asking about approval when the people being polled have relatively little understanding of the subject of the poll?

Furthermore, of the few items within the ACA that the public seems to know about, they strongly approve of. It's gotten to the point that the GOP, if they don't want to commit suicide would have to enact many of the SAME policies of the ACA in any repeal and replace.

Reinstate life time limits? Good luck with that.
Revoke insurance for all 25 and 26 year old full time students? Good luck with that.
Donut hole comes back? Good luck with that.
Pre-existing condition? Good luck with that.
Click to expand...



Really? You know I'm a Repub how? You base your opinion on what? All because I will vote against President Obama? You can't fathom there are people who won't walk lock-step with President Obama's Admin, yes? See that's how you Proggies get into trouble. You get froggy and jump to the wrong conclusions, based solely on how you'd react/hate in the situation.

"Free ridership is okay! Soak the responsible! All because I hate Obama!"


Again, hoppity-hop. The first two comments are you opinion only. The last is your project of how you feel about Repubs, not my opinion. I don't hate. It's a waste of time. Now I realize Proggies do hate, but your comment again is another projection from your thinking. You do know that hate is harmful to your health, don't you? :2razz:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom