Sponsoring this...


Consume this...

Supplement with this...

Polling this...

Legalize this...




Watch this...



  • Jihadwatch_1

Advocate this...

Support this...

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

« Sharing Maddox with this... | Main | Dear Ken, I hate to tell you this... »

June 29, 2004

Comments

alysa

I honestly do not understand this woman's appeal... I'd be more apt to keep an open mind if she ever accepted Bill's offer to be on his show, which will prob be never, so I guess my mind will stay closed on this subject.

Moze

My dad has a number of bumper stickers pinned to the giant cork board in his office. One is a cartoon of a cowboy pissing on a mountain top with the caption, “Divert this Denver.” Another reads, simply, “BAN MINING, let the bastards freeze in the dark.” Yet another reads, “If you like the U.S. Postal Service, you’ll love nationalized healthcare.” Some of those stickers have been around longer than others, but none longer than the healthcare sticker, which I can remember reading when I was in elementary school almost forty years ago.

The idea of national healthcare, like most of the principles of liberal ideology, have been around for a long time. (If you’re not clear about the principles of liberalism, it’s worth your time to Google topics like limited (read “no”) property rights, highly regulated private enterprise, welfare state, high taxation, minimum wage, secure employment, and “international solidarity” to name a few.) It seems like political ideologies swing in and out of favor like the pendulum on a grandfather clock. When President Clinton appointed then first lady Hillary Clinton to head The President's Task Force on National Health Reform (25 Jan. 1993), he commenced the most recent attempt to give socialism a foothold in the United States. Fortunately, the momentum changed, backing us away from that precipice.

At the core of socialist (read “modern liberal”) thought is the belief that “Government” is better equipped to make decisions than the common man. If you feel like this might be true, you may find modern liberalism acceptable. If you know it to be untrue, you owe it to yourself to carefully scrutinize the words and actions of Democrat politicians, particularly when they spout, “…we [“Government”] are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

And did you read Drudge today? Apparently, there’s intense speculation that Kerry will ask Mrs. Clinton to join the Democrat Presidential ticket.

Cheers,

tallglassofmilk

Dick Morris has been insisting all along that she would join if it's a winning ticket, which it could be if she's on it. But do you really think Kerry would put his ego aside for the good of his party and share the spotlight for her? I seriously doubt it. Not to mention, if they did win, she wouldn't be able to run for pres in 2008.

P.S. It did not go unnoticed that your comment was posted at 11:11. Stay tuned for more on this...

rock city

[At the core of socialist (read “modern liberal”) thought is the belief that “Government” is better equipped to make decisions than the common man.]

This is a very standard conservative description of liberalism, and therefore misleading. Actually, most people that are "liberals" or "socialists" in this country are not so because they believe government knows best. They are so because they believe that in a capitalist society, it is government's responsiblity to protect its most vulnerable citizens and to regulate industry as a means to guard us all from exploitation. Levels of this protection obviously vary. But to attempt universal health care, in my opinion, is not a condescending act. It is noble. We are not talking about a hand out here, we're talking about making sure that when people are sick, they are cared for. Affording health insurance is not simply a matter of working harder. I suggest reading "Nickle and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America" by Barbara Ehrenrheich.

That said, a government balanced with fiscal conservatives and liberals is healthy, in my opinion, as both keep the other in check.

Social conservatives, on the other hand, are so precisely because they believe government knows best and should therefore regulate (make decisions, as you say) what is moral, socially acceptable, etc., even if it applies to two consenting adults in their own home.

The fact that if I choose not to wear my seatbelt while in my own car and can be pulled over and ticketed is government telling me they need to protect me from myself. Why? Because they know better.

I cannot drink a beer on the sidewalk outside my apartment without risking a $100 ticket. Now that is condescending.

Without socialism or liberals, workers in this country would still be working twelve hour days, and eating meat from factories described in "The Jungle."

I fail to understand the demonization of "liberalism." Even if it is misguided, why the demonization?

Moze

“…it is government's responsiblity [sic] to protect its most vulnerable citizens and to regulate industry as a means to guard us all from exploitation.”

Thank you for reinforcing my points about large government and heavily regulated industry.

I described the Jan., 1993 Task Force on National Health Reform as an attempt to give socialism a foothold in the US, not as “a condescending act.” Those are your words. I might also point out that you use the term “universal healthcare” as though the ultimate aim is to extend such a benefit to every person on the planet. That’d dovetail nicely with a foreign policy of international solidarity.

Cheers,

tallglassofmilk

[They are so because they believe that in a capitalist society, it is government's responsiblity to protect its most vulnerable citizens and to regulate industry as a means to guard us all from exploitation.]

And when the government exploits? Then what?

[I might also point out that you use the term “universal healthcare” as though the ultimate aim is to extend such a benefit to every person on the planet. That’d dovetail nicely with a foreign policy of international solidarity.]

Nice. *

I believe this is on par with those who don't think we should rely on foreign oil for survival but who are unwilling to drill our precious land here and think windmills off the coast of Nantucket Island are too unsightly...

tallglassofmilk

Oh, forgot to mention Bill's suggestion he made on The Radio Factor this morning. The first thing the Hilldabeast can do is to return either or both of her two mansions paid for with taxpayer's money...

After all, if she has access to all that stuff she says she should share. Let her put her money where her mouth is.

rock city

[Thank you for reinforcing my points about large government and heavily regulated industry.]

Huh?

[And when the government exploits? Then what?]

I never suggested that industry should be taken over by the state. Would it be okay with you if there were no government regulations on corporates? Do you trust corporations more than representative government?

[I might also point out that you use the term “universal healthcare” as though the ultimate aim is to extend such a benefit to every person on the planet. That’d dovetail nicely with a foreign policy of international solidarity.]

That's nonsense. You're conflating my point, which hardly refutes it.

I am certainly not going to defend Hillary Clinton, that was not what I was trying to do. I think attempting to provide everyone with healthcare in this country, how ever it can work, whether entirely through government, or through private enterprise, or combination of both, is noble. The status quo, in my view, where 40 million people including millions of children are without healthcare is unacceptable.

Unfortunately it is very easy for any one of us to argue against each other and use hypocrites from opposing parties as leverage.



tallglassofmilk

[Would it be okay with you if there were no government regulations on corporates?]

Depends on the corporation but in general I favor less regulation on corporations. The same goes for personal safety. I don't need the government to tell me to wear a seat belt--or helmet. I know the risk and it's my choice to take it. The regulation only needs be enforced to ensure safety for children who can't make decisions for themselves. Do you think these laws are in place for our personal safety or for additional revenue for local government?

[Do you trust corporations more than representative government?]

Actually, I'd be more comfortable if our representative government would represent our wishes. Unfortunately, many of them have forgotten their purpose and they think they're there for themselves. Examples? Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, the list goes on. Besides, corporations are made up of people. Do you actually believe an elected official is somehow more trustworthy, credible or reliable to act on my behalf? They all have ulterior motives. I'd say that one's a toss up.

jeff

i think we should have a privatized national healthcare system run by haliburton....

they've done such a good job supporting our military!!!

jeff

i think we should get work behind closed doors with enron to craft this privatized system.... they did such a great job writing our energy policy!!!

rock city

[Unfortunately, many of them have forgotten their purpose and they think they're there for themselves. Examples? Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt, the list goes on.]

You're right. Only Democrats apply. All Republicans are absolved from that criticism.

Please.

Weren't we talking about balance a couple days ago?

[Do you actually believe an elected official is somehow more trustworthy, credible or reliable to act on my behalf?]

Than the management of a corporation? Sorry to break it to you, but "people" actually work at corporations to make money, not public policy. And they're not voted in. Was Kenneth Lay acting on your behalf when Enron screwed over California?

[They all have ulterior motives]

Well, only the Democrats apparently.

tallglassofmilk

[You're right. Only Democrats apply. All Republicans are absolved from that criticism.]

No. Nice try. Barbara Boxer is my senator, Kerry is running for President, Kennedy is obvious and Gephardt is a joke and my old neighboring senator. I mentioned the ones I know about that came to mind first. They all happened to be dems. I you've got republicans to add, please feel free, I haven't heard of their constituents complaining. All these otheres I have.

[Sorry to break it to you, but "people" actually work at corporations to make money, not public policy. And they're not voted in.]

Break what to me? Did you think I missed this in the fabulous public school system I was taught in? I never said anything to the contrary. In fact I said both have ulterior motives. You seem to think that those motives are money for people in corps. I'd agree. I'd also add power and a number of other things. Then I'd say the same about our elected officials.

[Was Kenneth Lay acting on your behalf when Enron screwed over California?]

Nope. And neither was Gray Davis.

So, I'm guessing you don't agree with me that this one's a toss up? You trust your elected assholes more than regular assholes who never run for office?

jeff

the difference between gray davis and ken lay is this... when the majority of californians lost faith in davis, they exercised their power to fire him (and a big part of that was that had to do with his handle of the so-called power crisis)...

when ken lay ripped his off his own company and the state of california... what happened? NOTHING... still living fat off the pensions he stole thanks to the cover he recieved from his pals in the white house...

i'm so sick and tired of the right wing accusations that dems are elitists out to get the little guy.... i got two words for you... ken lay... this guy helped write our frickin energy policy with dick cheney... he's the biggest robber barron in modern history and, yet, we are not privy to his participation at the highest levels of government policy making... that makes me feel good about our government... so much for transparency...

tallglassofmilk

[this guy helped write our frickin energy policy with dick cheney... ]

So do you agree with me or not that they all have ulterior motives and it's a toss up on who is more trustworthy? --which is all I was saying.

Don't assume that I'm an ignoramus and I don't know who is more accountable to us just because I didn't happen to mention the obvious here.

rock city

[Break what to me? Did you think I missed this in the fabulous public school system I was taught in? I never said anything to the contrary. In fact I said both have ulterior motives.]

Lol. Fair enough.

[you've got republicans to add, please feel free, I haven't heard of their constituents complaining]

At least half, if not more, of George W. Bush's constituents are complaining pretty fierce. Pretty sure you've heard of it.

This is silly.

tallglassofmilk

[At least half, if not more, of George W. Bush's constituents are complaining pretty fierce. Pretty sure you've heard of it. ]

Touche.

Hieu

hey there! Trying to figure out what a track back was and stumbled my way to your blog. Very nice!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Reciprocate this...

Bearing this...


  • Bfllogo

Latest additions to this...


Rolling this...