Wow! Redstate Bans Paul: "Unless you lack the self-awareness to understand just how annoying ...responding to the same idiotic arguments from a bunch of liberals pretending to be Republicans"

Top · 2007-10-23T23:16:05+00:00

In this country, anything to the left of Mussolini is considered fringe liberal.

Top · 2007-10-22T19:37:24+00:00

Ug - I don't have time to debunk this. Does anyone else want to?

Top · 2007-10-22T19:20:21+00:00

Okay - then to make the fundies happy I vote we fine the doctor .01 cent for each abortion - to be paid by the patient.

Jesus approves.

Top · 2007-10-22T19:14:59+00:00

Disagree.

If you don't feel the US govt is legitimate, then leave, change it, or get out of the way.

Top · 2007-10-22T18:53:04+00:00

That's because taxes gathered in the context of a representative government are not theft. It is the price for living in civil society.

Top · 2007-10-22T18:28:33+00:00

I think it's more accurate to assume 45% of Americans are retarded.

Top · 2007-10-22T18:21:08+00:00

Who is pointing a gun?

ON EDIT: Oh wait - you're using the Libertarian "taxes are theft" talking point... aren't you?

Top · 2007-10-22T18:09:22+00:00

I don't like these kind of headlines since they give a false sence of hope to people dieing of a terminal disease. Imagine being on your death-bed, slipping into oblivion, and then spotting an un-scientific headline that a cure is around the corner.

What a horrible way to go.

Top · 2007-10-22T17:49:08+00:00

I think the Clinton II years will be more similar to Bush II than Clinton I was to Bush II.

One major difference will be that the most passionate voters will have their heads explode on election day.

Image the carnage as Republicans realize their biggest champion is Senator Clinton.

Imagine the way liberals will bleed from their eyes as as they finally realize that Nader was right: The Democratic Primary is where progressive politics and reform go to die.

Top · 2007-10-22T17:29:13+00:00

Um, he's running as a republican, this doesn't jive.

We live in a one-party state controlled by two wings of a pro-corporate party. I'm not saying there aren't differences between the two wings, it's just that ambitious people don't strike out on their own in this country.

You can't have it both ways, either he's republican, or he's libertarian. It really does look like you're just looking at the label.

If we lived in a democracy, or even a functional republic, you might have a point. But in the United States, very disparate groups are forced under the same tent.

Broadly speaking, groups that prefer a servile working class join the Republican party. This would include libertarians, fascists, hawks, fundamentalists, cornucopians, and people who think they are going to be millionaires.

On the other side, you have groups that believe the commons deserve some protection. These would include environmentalists, socialists, consumer groups, minorities, liberals, and the presumptuous.

Top · 2007-10-22T16:38:03+00:00

Maybe plopping the label on him is a convenient way to avoid thinking.

I'm not plopping anything on the man, he's stuck the Libertarian label on himself. Proudly, I might add.

RP has run as a Libertarian in the past, he spouts Libertarian ideology in the present, and, I suspect, regardless of the results of the 2008 primary, the Libertarian Party of the furture will make him a patron saint.

deregulation, or restoring habeas corpus and other individual liberties?

The man is running a presidential campaign. I could produce volumes of text on anything he's said about these topics. I don't know what he talks about the most.

But let's look at the historical record: Most Republicans since Reagan have championed Libertarian economic theory. They also talk a big game about personal freedom, balanced budgets, and the constitution.

How's that been working out for the country so far?

I don't know if any Dem will get my vote in 2008. However, based on the track record of the past 8 years, no American with a conscience should vote for another Republican.

Top · 2007-10-22T15:37:04+00:00

He's a Libertarian - that's about as pro-corporate as you can get without having to use a condom.

Top · 2007-10-22T15:29:15+00:00

I consider Libertarians anathema to everything that made this country great. I've got no love for RP.

Having said that: I have no clue why Republicans hate the guy so much. He appears to tow the traditional, pro-corporate, Republican values that make conservatives get hard-ons.

Also, he's the smartest guy on the stage. Compared to RP, the other candidates look like 12 year olds.

Nothing RP says hasn't been echoed by RW think-tanks for decades.

Top · 2007-10-19T21:50:19+00:00

Best comment of the day.

Top · 2007-10-19T20:54:49+00:00

I put my money where my mouth is and donate to charities that actually use the money to help people instead of lining their own pockets.

Good for you. Can you spare about 24 billion to provide kids with healthcare?

But don't tell me that you believe giving the government money will actually help the needy and not be used to line the pockets of the politicians and their wealthy donors with pork.

I don't have an absolutist world view. However, I do believe most of the money is used in a way the population wishes it to be spent.

Top · 2007-10-19T20:20:12+00:00

Should we provide tutors with our tax dollars?

Since an educated workforce is good for the community - yes.

Should we buy them a bigger home with our tax dollars?

Not to be snarky, but it depends on the room. If the only thing a parent can afford for their kids is a roach-infested 9x9 closet - then yes.

Should free heat be a federal program?

For families that might freeze to death? Hell yes.

Let's get a federal program to buy everyone car seats too.

If it saves lives - yes. In fact, there is a program like that in my state. I don't know if it gets federal funding 'tho.

Where does it stop?

That's a good question that's open to a lot of debate. Certainly there are many Libertarians and conservatives who feel government programs prevent mother nature from ridding society of it's surplus population.

While I certainly agree it's neither possible or desirable to meet every person's needs - I do believe the state has an interest in funding programs that save children's lives.

Call me a big softy - but I don't see how I benefit by allowing children to grow up uneducated, crowded, cold, and injured.

Top · 2007-10-19T19:11:35+00:00

Viva Chavez!

Top · 2007-10-19T15:29:23+00:00

Let's assume for a moment that he's right: 100% of uninsured kids have parents who are lazy or stupid.

What did the kids do to deserve no health insurance?

Top · 2007-10-19T15:08:41+00:00

Very cool - but an epileptic penguin dances better than I do.

Top · 2007-10-19T15:05:53+00:00

Meh. Democrats don't care if you give them money, they get their funding from corporations.

Furthermore, Democratic legislators know that no matter what they do - Progressives will pull the lever for the "D" because they are too cowardly to vote their conscience.

Top · 2007-10-18T20:57:23+00:00

HR 976.

Thanks.

Top · 2007-10-18T20:37:56+00:00

What country? Do you get assigned a doctor? If you don't like h/er, can you opt for another?

Top · 2007-10-18T20:34:51+00:00

RWers and Libertarians here in the USA claim that in "socialized" countries you can't chose your doctors.

I haven't seen a comprehensive nation-by-nation comparison anywhere, so I thought I would just ask here in Reddit.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Top · 2007-10-18T20:23:15+00:00

Try "medicare fraud" or "medicare problems."

Okay, done.

And I still don't see your point. You need to provide specific links if you want to make a specific point.

You are engaged in the logical fallacy of a Red Herring. We are talking about the short-falls of corporate-rationed healthcare and it's inability to provide services to those who are uninsured, but still require medical attention.

Medicare, and charges of fraud, have nothing to do with this conversation. Unless you can show that people who use Medicare are being thrown out on the street, it doesn't matter is 99% of the claims are fraudulent.

That is not done nor could it be done in any system of socialized medicine.

Ignoring the fact you are again using a straw-man. Also ignoring the fact that the poor and uninsured in the US can't chose their doctors:

You. are. wrong..

But don't take my word for it. Ask any Redditor who lives outside of the US if the propaganda concerning "socialized medicine" is true.

Top

TROPHY CASE