• 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!

Rove says Palin lacks ‘gravitas’ to be president

ReverendHellh0und said:
Spade a spade bro. You think he's not left wing enough. Please explain some examples how you think so. I'll wait. Concentrate on the economic policies first.... Why you try to hide your stripes tiger is beyond me. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I said he didn't go far enough, I didn't say anything about left wing. Many wanted the public option and much less of republican ideas in the Health care bill. Many wanted DADT simply removed. No process. And many don't like what he has done in Afghanistan (count me among those). You, as mindless partisans do, threw out left wing and the cheap, unoriginal, and lazy socialist tactic.
 
Boo Radley said:
I said he didn't go far enough, I didn't say anything about left wing. Many wanted the public option and much less of republican ideas in the Health care bill. Many wanted DADT simply removed. No process. And many don't like what he has done in Afghanistan (count me among those). You, as mindless partisans do, threw out left wing and the cheap, unoriginal, and lazy socialist tactic.
Click to expand...


So no answer on your economic positions. Thanks, I have all I need to know, comrade. :thumbs:
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So no answer on your economic positions. Thanks, I have all I need to know, comrade. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Like what? Bailouts? As I have said, there would have been bailouts regardless of who was president. And he would be in worse shape with public opinion today had there not been. But at least Obama, unlike past presidents, sought to get our money back, and there is some indication he might. And nothing he did made us a socialist government. Does even more us toward being one.

Now, I answered in the last post why I said what I said, your silliness is less a concern for me, as it is unoriginal and lazy. There are few socialists in this country, and certainly not in any real number in either major party. The charge is just an cheap, unoriginal and lazy effort at attacking your opponent.
 
What about taxes? at what rate would you tax the rich?

Do you support single payer health care?

Do you support dictating how much workers be paid?


lets start there, comrade.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
What about taxes? at what rate would you tax the rich?

Do you support single payer health care?

Do you support dictating how much workers be paid?


lets start there, comrade.
Click to expand...

I see no problem going back to the prebush tax cut rates. We did fine under them. I personally have no problem with a single payor system system as it would take it out of the workplace, allowing business to better compete with the rest of the world, who mostly have a universial payor (and most are not socialist). And no one is dicitating how much workers are paid, outside of minimum wage, which isn't new.

Again, nonthing there is socialism.
 
Boo Radley said:
I see no problem going back to the prebush tax cut rates. We did fine under them. I personally have no problem with a single payor system system as it would take it out of the workplace, allowing business to better compete with the rest of the world, who mostly have a universial payor (and most are not socialist). And no one is dicitating how much workers are paid, outside of minimum wage, which isn't new.

Again, nonthing there is socialism.
Click to expand...


this is socialist. just saying its not doesn't make it true dood.
 
Sarah_Palin.JPG

Brace yourselves!

Karl Rove is worried about Sarah Palin for the same damn reasons the Leftists are worried about with her.

She is a very pretty, experienced politician, she does not back down, or back off in the face of name calling, lies, and general character assassination, and to top it off Sarah Palin does her own thinking since the 08 election and the Karl Roves know they are not going to be able to tell he what to think, or believe.

And the waste thing of all she's a Mom and has been in a grocery store and lived within a budget, and actually has many years of decision making experience that far exceeds Obama's deciding what telephone pole to tack up SEIU or ACORN posters.

And that about covers Obama's abilities, untill the last two years and in that time he has learned how to do the wrong thing every time.
 
Councilman said:
Sarah_Palin.JPG

Brace yourselves!

Karl Rove is worried about Sarah Palin for the same damn reasons the Leftists are worried about with her.

She is a very pretty, experienced politician, she does not back down, or back off in the face of name calling, lies, and general character assassination, and to top it off Sarah Palin does her own thinking since the 08 election and the Karl Roves know they are not going to be able to tell he what to think, or believe.

And the waste thing of all she's a Mom and has been in a grocery store and lived within a budget, and actually has many years of decision making experience that far exceeds Obama's deciding what telephone pole to tack up SEIU or ACORN posters.

And that about covers Obama's abilities, untill the last two years and in that time he has learned how to do the wrong thing every time.
Click to expand...

God, can't believe I made it as far as the underlined before I had to call you out.

So in answer to ther underlined...

That's why she resigned as governor... Go it. Never backs... down.
 
Jetboogieman said:
That's why she resigned as governor... Go it. Never backs... down.
Click to expand...

not backing down...strategy :shrug: I think she is more savvy than people give her credit for. that and I'd totally do her.
 
OscarB63 said:
not backing down...strategy :shrug: I think she is more savvy than people give her credit for. that and I'd totally do her.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the only thing we'll agree on when it comes to Sarah Palin.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
this is socialist. just saying its not doesn't make it true dood.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.

Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.[1][2][3]

Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so·cial·ism   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled
[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA

–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com

Many non-socailist countries have universal health care. Neither great Britian nor Canada are socalist countries for example. You simply misunderstand the definition of socialism.
 
Deuce said:
Conservatives, always playing the sexist card... :lol:

I dislike Palin. Not because she's female, but because she appears to be some kind of idiot.
Click to expand...

I dislike Obama because he appears to be some kind of idiot. That makes me a racist. If I'm a racist, you are a sexist.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So single payer is controlled by whom?
Click to expand...

That's not "the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." That is tax payors working together to solve a problem. Most of the world has some form of Universal payor, but most of the world is not socialist. You are confusing different things, and trying to make them the same. Just because we work together to fix some problems it doesn't mean we now a socialist country. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. While we may never be a purely capitalistic country, and haven't been for decades and decades, we are not a socialism. Nor would a universal payor on health care make us one.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Really boo? Is that a serious answer or are you being silly again?
Click to expand...

Serious. It isn't socialism. By definition, it is not socialism. By looking at countries around the world, who are clearly not socialist countries, but still have uiniversal payors, we can conclude that having a Universal payor in healthcare is not socialism. Both ways of assessing it comes to the same conclusion, tackling healthcare with a universial payor is not equal to socialism.

If I were being silly, I would say something like what you just said. ;)
 
So what is it when a government controls the means of production of services like it would be with single payer?
 
Boo Radley said:
...Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources...
Click to expand...

This describes, exactly, single payer health care. Public or common ownership of medical facilities and cooperative management of those facilities and allocation of resources. Thank you for spelling it out, now read your own words.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So what is it when a government controls the means of production of services like it would be with single payer?
Click to expand...

Health care is not means of production and services. Government would only be the payer. They would not be providing medicine or treating anyone. Just the payer. Taking in premiums and paying the bills, like any other payer.

And in this country, we would have a two tier system, and those who could pay for more would buy more. There would be no control of production of services.

At the end of the day, medicine is a public health concern and not a commodity. More along the lines of roads and less like a chair or a car or even a plumber. Public health effects all of us.
 
FederalRepublic said:
This describes, exactly, single payer health care. Public or common ownership of medical facilities and cooperative management of those facilities and allocation of resources. Thank you for spelling it out, now read your own words.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. I explain above.
 
Ran across this and thought I'd post it before I left for the day:

If the United States fails to democratically restructure its economy, we face a future of increased inequality and poverty. But the constant drumbeat of right-wing "socialist-baiting" makes it less likely that this administration will consider the public initiatives - such as investments in alternative energy, education, and health care - that could engender productive jobs at good wages.

Reactionary forces have always utilized anti-socialism to oppose democratic reforms that constrain corporate power. Corporate America tried to red-bait Social Security, the GI Bill, and Medicare. But ordinary Americans rejected the politics of fear, and reforms passed that significantly improved the lives of average Americans. It will take Americans once again rejecting mindless anti-socialism to create sufficient support for the extensive reforms needed to address this deep and systemic economic crisis.

Socialism And The Politics Of Fear - CBS News

The Stanford Progressive
 
Boo Radley said:
Health care is not means of production and services. Government would only be the payer. They would not be providing medicine or treating anyone. Just the payer. Taking in premiums and paying the bills, like any other payer.

And in this country, we would have a two tier system, and those who could pay for more would buy more. There would be no control of production of services.

At the end of the day, medicine is a public health concern and not a commodity. More along the lines of roads and less like a chair or a car or even a plumber. Public health effects all of us.
Click to expand...



are you really this gullible? if the Government is the only payer, then it dictates who it pays. :failpail:
 
Boo Radley said:
No, it doesn't. I explain above.
Click to expand...

If you refuse to admit that single-payer health care is a socialist program by your own definition, there really isn't any point in having any sort of discussion with you. You will say the sky is not blue if it advances your agenda.
 
FederalRepublic said:
If you refuse to admit that single-payer health care is a socialist program by your own definition, there really isn't any point in having any sort of discussion with you. You will say the sky is not blue if it advances your agenda.
Click to expand...

I see you have met boo. :ssst:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom