Example of how liberals don't think, have boogeymen fantasy

[_beastie]

Feel free to believe whatever bigotry makes you feel good at night.....

I simply don't have time to get into a discussion about health care all the ideas, nuances, details etc., to collect, collate and regurgitate every little thing I've learned in a LIFETIME of observation and learning on the subject.

There is simply not enough time to reply to all you people with everything I would like to say.
I know how you will take it, you will take it just like you've just said, believing your fantasy bigotry over the person for his lack of response. And you can just sit there, not having to do a DANG thing...... while expecting the rest of us to prepare a proper thesis that you will just mock anyway.

Sorry, I have bigger problems right now than entertaining you with important things that are low on my priority list right now.

If you want to know conservative thought, ideas, plans on how to fix health care and otherwise, do YOUR OWN RESEARCH for a change. But I know you won't because you prefer mocking people from a distance instead, without having to use your brain and morality. There are MANY smart conservatives out there. Since it's so important to you to know my thoughts, study them. I believe the same. Have you even watched Romney's Health Care presentation at that college?

You mock things you don't even take time to understand to see which side is really sensible.

Who do you think you're kidding? You don't know enough about how it will affect you to even provide a short summary of why the republican plan is better for you, personally.

[_beastie]

If the Ryan budget in the incarnation that passed congress as a symbolic gesture were actually to be passed, you'd be screwed Lee. I find it noble when someone votes against their personal interest because they think it is the right thing to do, but that should be kept distinct from the fact that you would indeed be screwed. MA would take a massive hit and one of the first areas of assistance that would go down would be people in situations you've described yourself in.

More like his children would be screwed. Not so noble to vote against your children's best interest. I doubt his child could afford high-cost surgery without that aid.

[_Brackite]

From Wikipedia:

The California Medical Assistance Program (Medi-Cal or MediCal) is the name of the California Medicaid program serving low-income families, seniors, persons with disabilities, children in foster care, pregnant women, and certain low-income adults. It is jointly administered by the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), with many services implemented at the local level mainly by the counties of California. Approximately 8.8 million people were enrolled in Medi-Cal for at least 1 month in 2009-10, or about 23% of California's population.[1]

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medi-Cal


DEMOCRAT Governor Jerry Brown has been constantly trying to cut Medi-Cal for the low-income People in California.

Gov. Jerry Brown takes case for Medi-Cal cuts to Washington:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/25 ... n-20120225

Calif. Gov. Brown's Revised Budget Includes Substantial Medi-Cal Cuts:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-R ... -cuts.aspx


Yet DEMOCRAT Jerry Brown recently signed a Bill that will spend Billions of dollars for a stupid Bullet train to Nowhere in California.

Jerry Brown signs California high-speed rail bill:
http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlat ... -bill.html

[_just me]

If the Ryan budget in the incarnation that passed congress as a symbolic gesture were actually to be passed, you'd be screwed Lee. I find it noble when someone votes against their personal interest because they think it is the right thing to do, but that should be kept distinct from the fact that you would indeed be screwed. MA would take a massive hit and one of the first areas of assistance that would go down would be people in situations you've described yourself in.

More like his children would be screwed. Not so noble to vote against your children's best interest. I doubt his child could afford high-cost surgery without that aid.

[_Kevin Graham]

But will liberals change their minds and learn? Nope. The propaganda and lie is more satisfying to them.

Lee, the simple fact is Republicans know it is becoming more and more difficult to get elected. They know that the best way they can guarantee elections is by either buying them or by suppressing Democrat votes. The Citizens United case was designed to do precisely that. Since statistics show that elections can be one but the guy with the most money, The Right Wingers on the Supreme Court decided to let corporations funnel unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns, and stipulated that they don't even have to disclose where the money comes from. So it is feasible that foreign money donated by terrorist groups, could be used to decide who our next President is.

Republicans are OK with this, because according to their convoluted logic, corporations are people too.

Now, thanks to the "Conservatives" legislating from the bench, unlimited amounts of money can now be used to sway voters. OF course the Republicans want this more than anyone because they know corporations and the uber wealthy are essentially their #1 constituents, while "we the people" are generally pushing for a Liberal/progressive. They know they'll never be able to get the popular vote again, so they have to make power plays in order to manipulate the electoral college, like resdistricting, and getting Republican Governors to pass voter suppression laws. But most effective of their victory in Citizens United. It allows idiots like Romney to get away with attacking half the country, because he is relying on the old axiom "money wins elections."

Consider that 40% of all of Obama's campaign contributions come from small donors of $200 or less, whereas that percentage is a mere 15% for Romney. The bulk of his campaign contributions come strictly from the wealthy elite and corporations who see this as an opportune time for them to essentially buy a politician, the same way they were able to buy Reagan.

What's sadder is the fact that the people who suffer from all this sometimes delude themselves to do the bidding of their enemy. Romney doesn't care about you. You're among the 47% he insulted. Corporations don't care about you either. They don't care about anything except making a profit, and to them campaign contributions is nothing more than a business investment. Thanks to Citizens United, it is possible for elections to be decided, not by a representative democracy, as designed by our founding Fathers, but rather the tiny minority, simply because they've accumulated wealth.

[_Droopy]

Hi, Lee.

Do you or members of your family still receive government assistance?

And are you going to ever tell the truth about conservative ideology and conservatives?
I and we are NOT "against" government assistance. We simply believe there are better ways to do it, and also handle the various issues related to it.

As I said, Faqs, in another thread, don't fall for it. Its a diversionary tactic used by people who have no intellectual ammunition when they get to the table of debate at the outset.

Scratch, Graham, and several others have been using this same tactic against me for months ever sense they found out that, out of my entire life, I was on government assistance for some three years, intermittently, over the course of some years.

What I find very interesting about this whole "welfare hawk" argument is the way in which it implies exactly what conservatives have long pointed out about those who become dependent upon the state for their sustenance, that many of these people eventually begin to vote according to the self interest of their own belly, and that a free, limited government-based, self governing society can only endure so long under those conditions and as those conditions spread.

These people's minds literally shut down when faced with someone who holds a political philosophy that seeks the dismantling of the very system that they had occasion to use at one time, which, in there minds, equates to voting aginst "your own interests." They cannot understand someone who would vote based upon matters of principle when so voting might remove a wealth transfer from their fellow citizens to themselves.

Precisely! That is the danger! Exactly! I've been voting against my own self interest for 35 years so that a much better system could be created, grounded in true principles, sound empirical evidence, and the principles of the Founding that would minimize the destructiveness of the secular welfare state and maximize correct principles of welfare as found in the gospel of Jesus Christ (providing the Lord's way).

[_Droopy]

As I pointed out in another thread:

The point is that the welfare state has been, across theoretical, historical, and empirical dimensions, a social, economic, and moral disaster as a system (as it has in other western nations), has no constitutional legitimacy, has created grossly corrupted incentives and mindsets among to the givers and receivers of such welfare, is endangering the viability of the American economy as well as a free, ordered, civil society, and could be replaced by a much more effective, humane, and morally viable system.

[_Brackite]

So let me get this straight :

If a Republican wants to cut health care for the poor people, it means that he is mean-spirited, and that he only cares about the rich.

If a Democrat wants to cut health care for the poor people, it means that he has to make a few painful cuts so that he can be able to try to balance his State budget, while it is okay for him to then sign a Bill that will spend Billions of dollars on a Bullet train to nowhere.

[_beastie]

So let me get this straight :

If a Republican wants to cut health care for the poor people, it means that he is mean-spirited, and that he only cares about the rich.

If a Democrat wants to cut health care for the poor people, it means that he has to make a few painful cuts so that he can be able to try to balance his State budget, while it is okay for him to then sign a Bill that will spend Billions of dollars on a Bullet train to nowhere.

I didn't say anything about whether or not it makes the republican mean-spirited. (And I don't know anything about the Democrat you're talking about, I assume in your state). I'm saying that Lee's family's situation will not be improved under a Republican administration. He thinks it will be, but has refused to explain how.

[_krose]

If a Democrat wants to cut health care for the poor people, it means that he has to make a few painful cuts so that he can be able to try to balance his State budget, while it is okay for him to then sign a Bill that will spend Billions of dollars on a Bullet train to nowhere.

Too cryptic to make sense.

What are you talking about? Where is this "train to nowhere"?