• 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

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...

That's a good point. You have to acknowledge when something is socialistic by definition. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for instance also smack of socialism. So do police and firefighters.
 
Guy Incognito said:
That's a good point. You have to acknowledge when something is socialistic by definition. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for instance also smack of socialism. So do police and firefighters.
Click to expand...


So you think police and firefighters is the same as single payer healthcare?
 
^ Pretty much, unless they are private. What's the economic difference between public firefighters, public police and public doctors? Or teachers for that matter. Why are doctors special?
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
...If the United States fails to democratically restructure its economy, we face a future of increased inequality and poverty...
Click to expand...

Restructure the economy...to socialism perhaps?
 
The GOP HAS to nominate Palin in 2012. She is the voice of the GOP and would be the ideal candidate for the GOP.
 
I like this. The only thread I've seen where liberals and conservatives agree on something. Maybe if Palin takes office we will become united. After all, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We agree so much on how terrible Palin is, the topic simply reverted back to arguing about Obama on the second page of the thread, lol.
 
Guy Incognito said:
That's a good point. You have to acknowledge when something is socialistic by definition. Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security for instance also smack of socialism. So do police and firefighters.
Click to expand...

Police, firefighters, teachers, all controlled locally and for the most part funded locally. I see what you're saying, but there is a significant distinction.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
So you think police and firefighters is the same as single payer healthcare?
Click to expand...

Only to a real libertarian.

FederalRepublic said:
Police, firefighters, teachers, all controlled locally and for the most part funded locally. I see what you're saying, but there is a significant distinction.
Click to expand...

Well, I agree there is a difference in their function, but I don't see how it makes a difference whether the socialism is local or federal.
 
from Disneydude

The GOP HAS to nominate Palin in 2012. She is the voice of the GOP and would be the ideal candidate for the GOP.
Click to expand...

I am in complete and total agreement. In fact, if Ms. Palin gets into the primary race, I may make my first donation ever to a GOP candidate. And since I do not live in a closed primary state, I can even pledge to vote for her in the Republican presidential primary. I will be happy to do whatever I can to get the nomination for her.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Well, I agree there is a difference in their function, but I don't see how it makes a difference whether the socialism is local or federal.
Click to expand...

Who is more likely to be available and open to discussion, a federal official in Washington, or a local official who lives down the street? If the police department in your town sucks, you can go to the person in charge to complain about it. If that doesn't work, you can move to a different town. If we have a single payer health care system, who do I even complain to in the first place? Then if I don't get satisfaction, where can I go to get away from the source of my dissatisfaction?

I agree that there are many local public services that are necessary and that they are collectivist/socialist. I have much less of a problem having a collective agreement with my neighbor because at the end of the day, I choose my neighbors and can change them any time I please.
 
FederalRepublic said:
Who is more likely to be available and open to discussion, a federal official in Washington, or a local official who lives down the street? If the police department in your town sucks, you can go to the person in charge to complain about it. If that doesn't work, you can move to a different town. If we have a single payer health care system, who do I even complain to in the first place? Then if I don't get satisfaction, where can I go to get away from the source of my dissatisfaction?

I agree that there are many local public services that are necessary and that they are collectivist/socialist. I have much less of a problem having a collective agreement with my neighbor because at the end of the day, I choose my neighbors and can change them any time I please.
Click to expand...

Well, that's interesting. I can't say I agree, I don't really see a difference between coercion whether it comes from down the street or three thousand miles away. Coercion is coercion.
 
Last edited:
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...

you need to pay the top rate on your next dollar if you have no problem with others paying them
 
Palin doesn't have the huevos to be president. And I'm not saying that because she is a woman. I think Hillary Clinton probably has more huevos than her husband.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Well, that's interesting. I can't say I agree, I don't really see a difference between coercion whether it comes from down the street or three thousand miles away. Coercion is coercion.
Click to expand...

If I have a choice in the matter, is it still coercion? Do you see where I'm going with this?
 
FederalRepublic said:
If I have a choice in the matter, is it still coercion? Do you see where I'm going with this?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get what you're saying. We can argue about the extent to which involuntary taxation is coercive. But my point is that it doesn't make a difference if the person who robs you lives down the street or across the country.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Yeah, I get what you're saying. We can argue about the extent to which involuntary taxation is coercive. But my point is that it doesn't make a difference if the person who robs you lives down the street or across the country.
Click to expand...

Constant competition among the states and cities for the best and brightest individuals, each having their own preferred level of government intervention is how we got to be a wold power in a relatively short period of time. By centralizing policies and power in Washington, we're losing what made us great...competition with ourselves. I'm sure you don't need me to explain this to you, but freedom is part of that. If a particular group of people want to pool their resources together in a socialist utopia, they should be able to go to town in their own community. That's not coercion.
 
I agree with Rove. Sorry folks, but I think his strategic thinking is still something to be reckoned with.
 
FederalRepublic said:
If a particular group of people want to pool their resources together in a socialist utopia, they should be able to go to town in their own community. That's not coercion.
Click to expand...

I think this is where we diverge. I don't think it's any different to say this about a town or country "pooling their resources for a socialist utopia." I can see the argument that a republican form of government is not coercive is the people are enfranchised, but if you look at it from another angle, what right does the majority have to dictate to the minority how it should spend its money? We could be talking about a 99% percent vote in favor of socialism, but even if one person doesn't consent, it's coercive for that person. Rights are being trampled on, what's the difference who does the trampling? Or where they live?
 
Boo Radley said:
Not sure you're right about that, but if so, for a different reason than conservatives aren't. Many of them think he hasn't gone far enough. They want someone more liberal.
Click to expand...

I'm bettin' that that ain't it. The next step would be dictatorship.
 
We must destroy the Democrats in order to prevent a dictatorship!!!
 
apdst said:
Not Democrats, just Liberalism. Liberalism, Progressivism, Socialism, Communism, Facism; six of one, a half dozen of the other.
Click to expand...

Isn't it a little early in the day to be isming all over the place like that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom