|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..13~14~15~16~17~18 [Next] | ||||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 14, 2015, acesover wrote: Okay, so where in that video (give me a precise minute and second) did Obama make a promise to implement a single payer health care system when he ran for election or reelection as President? The bits I watched, I only saw him calling for universal healthcare. That is not the same as single payer. Hey, I'm not saying Obama did or did not run on the issue of single payer. I never followed your last couple of elections THAT closely. I'm only going now by what Danny himself said up above, about how "during the election he did not stay on that course" (call for single payer). So was Danny wrong then, or is he wrong now? When you figure it out, let me know.
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 14, 2015, balducci wrote: Nothing to figure out. When Obama talks be careful. When Obama talks and promises...be very careful. I am sorry he did not use the words promise. Jeez. Did you watch a different vid? In the first 9 seconds he says I happen to be a proponent of single payer/ Just what do you feel he meant when he said that?
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Don't bother. Balducci is going to spin and parse words and then just say oh well it doesn't affect me so I don't care.
All that matters is putting forth an agenda and spinning.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
balducci Loyal user Canada 227 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 15, 2015, acesover wrote: Aces, seriously, read my posts. I never said he was not a proponent of single payer. I'm sure he is. What we are talking about is precisely whether or not he explicitly made SINGLE PAYER an election promise when he ran for President. Still waiting for proof of that. Although you seem to admit he did not when you say: "I am sorry he did not use the words promise". (Again, a reminder for you ... universal healthcare is not the same as a single payer system ... you can have universal healthcare without a single payer system. BTW, not even Canada's overall health care system is completely single payer. It is only single payer for basic health care needs. Over 30% (more or less) of health care spending in Canada is private and not public.) As for the first nine seconds of the video ... that was from 2003! That has nothing to do with his Presidential election. I dunno ... maybe you should stick to commenting on the wearing (or not) of pants?
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
|
|||||||||
rockwall Special user 762 Posts |
I think the point that Danny and Aces have made, (which you've distorted by adding claims that they DIDN'T make), is that Obama has always been for single payer, was an advocate for single payer, promised that he had a plan to make it happen, BUT during the election, tried to cover that up by only talking about universal healthcare. He DIDN'T talk about single payer while running for president. He acted like he wasn't for it. THAT is what would make him a liar about it. It's obvious from what he said in the past that he knew he couldn't get single payer in right away but that by moving to universal care first, it would eventually push everyone into the direction of single payer.
landmark is upset that he didn't go for single payer from the get go. (Although Obama knew that would have failed and I suspect deep down, landmark knows it too.) |
|||||||||
rockwall Special user 762 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 15, 2015, balducci wrote: That may be what you want us to think they were talking about but from reading the posts, it obviously isn't. |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
The question is, what do the American people want?
As I said before, the original plan was watered down because Conservative politicians of both parties vetoed anything that would harm the interests of private insurance companies. Remember, the public option that was at one time a serious option on the table?
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Yes this dastardly conservatives. Always them. Oh the humanity. Pathetic one trick pony landmark.
Name for me who you think a conservative in power is.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5194 Posts |
Are you trying to make the case that conservatives didn't want to keep the private insurance companies? This should be interesting.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
rockwall Special user 762 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 15, 2015, landmark wrote: Well, by a majority, I think most would prefer to have what they used to have. The fact that single payer couldn't have passed pretty much shows what they DIDN'T want. Unless, by American people, you mean the 10% of far left who know what is best for everyone else. |
|||||||||
rockwall Special user 762 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 15, 2015, rockwall wrote: Not that this really matters. As was shown in a previous thread, if you're for Obama, you don't care that he's a liar. And in fact, for some, this is one of his most endearing qualities. |
|||||||||
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 15, 2015, balducci wrote: I forgot he changes his mind whenever he thinks he might get a few votes. Everything I thought relevant and important does not change from year to year like Obama and his supposed ideals. If we were to list his changes in what is important a year or so ago and what he really believed there is not enough bandwith here. I don't want to get banned again but I really have a difficult time believing anything he says. He does not so much change his mind. He says what gets him votes. That is a man one must fear. There is another one of those on the horizon. Speak what you believe and I may disagree with you but I can and will respect your opinion. Feed me only what I want to hear and I have no respect or trust in you. Compound it with lies and you are not worthy of hearing, because you cannot be trusted. As far as wearingpants goes if Obama thought it would get him a few more votes he would take them off. I think that is a given. We have seen who he gives interviews to and who he snubs. Hint Green lipstick. Hint Israel. Have you ever heard of the work arrogant? In the new dictionaries guess whose picture is in the description of the word. Hint he is holding a golf club.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 15, 2015, landmark wrote: I am asking you to name who you think is a conservative in power. You couldn't so you deflect. Interesting how you blame "conservatives" yet you can not manage to name even ONE in power! But that does not matter. You have an ideology and you stick to it no matter what. You are blinkered. You don't care if your side wins by telling lies and doing EXACTLY the things you deride the other side for. What would you say of the other side if they exhibited this behavior? I am pretty sure we all know.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
acesover Special user I believe I have 821 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 15, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote: Please don't make it sound like Obama got elected because the majority of people wanted Obamacare (ACA). That discussion would start another topic and definitely get me banned.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
|
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
I think it is clear. People who are so blinded by ideology are just what they are. We know who they are here and they keep posting no matter what the facts are. No biggie.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Historically, the word "conservative" referred to those who wished to conserve the status quo; the world "liberal" referred to those who wished to expand liberty. These are doctrinal positions, not party affiliations. By the mid-20th century, most non-socialist western politicians were liberals, with varying amounts of conservative impulses behind them. This, I think, is the sort of distinction that landmark is making.
Sometime around the 1980s, politicians calling themselves conservative, began appealing to a vague lost golden age (think religion, nuclear family, picket fences) that was their task to reclaim. In this case, they were conserving a lost era through reclamation. Liberals began expanding their notion of liberty beyond what most people would recognize. Again, this is about doctrine, not party. all parties have a range of positions within them. What do we have today? Not sure. But the loudest and strongest voices appear to be the most strident conservatives and the bulk of liberals appear to have lost their agenda and look more like mid-century conservatives than mid-century liberals. Maybe they think their job is done; I'm not sure. Behind all this, we continue to have radical parties, especially in Europe. These, as landmark argues, try to stand outside the conservative/liberal tradition and challenge the political and economic infrastructure that supports them. It's hard to tell how serious they are and what they propose to replace market-based liberal democracy with. Just my $0.02. I'm sure I'll get called a few names over it.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Http://www.edmundburkeinstitute.org/edmundburke.htm
This is a good starting point. Funny how you never used the word "property" which is essential in the conservative viewpoint.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 15, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote: It is to the contemporary American Republican viewpoint; it is not part of conservatism in general. It certainly wasn't part of Edmund Burke's conservatism.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21219 Posts |
Your joking right? Tell me you were joking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke From your very own favorite source WIKI. Burke is regarded by most political historians in the English-speaking world as the father of modern English conservatism.[136][137][138] Burke was utilitarian and empirical in his arguments, while Joseph de Maistre, a fellow conservative from the continent, was more a providentialist and sociological, and used a more confrontational tone in his arguments.[139] Burke's ideas placing property at the base of human development and the development of society, were radical and new at the time.[citation needed] Burke believed that property was essential to human life. Because of his conviction that people desire to be ruled and controlled, the division of property formed the basis for social structure, helping develop control within a property-based hierarchy. He viewed the social changes brought on by property as the natural order of events, which should be taking place as the human race progressed. With the division of property and the class system, he also believed that it kept the monarch in check to the needs of the classes beneath the monarch. Since property largely aligned or defined divisions of social class, class too, was seen as natural—part of a social agreement that the setting of persons into different classes, is the mutual benefit of all subjects. Concern for property is not Burke's only influence. As Christopher Hitchens summarizes, "If modern conservatism can be held to derive from Burke, it is not just because he appealed to property owners in behalf of stability but also because he appealed to an everyday interest in the preservation of the ancestral and the immemorial." This is why it is so laughable when you guys try to tell "conservatives" what we do and do not believe. You see others in the simplest terms so that you can simply dismiss the viewpoint rather than actually deal with it. It is what makes "intelligent discussion" as you laughably call it impossible.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On Feb 15, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote: Have you read a single word Burke published, Danny? Just asking. I see that the Wikipiedia claim says [citation needed]: I'd love to know what text that claim is based on. Anyway, can you point to the Burke text(s) that place property at the centre of Burke's political philosophy? I suspect you'd be surprised at the number of "common goods" that he argues for. Make no mistake, Burke was in favour of preserving the rights of inheritance as he saw the preservation of family wealth as an important feature of social stability (in England and Ireland in the 18th century), but that's a far cry making property the central feature of his political philosophy. I'm no Burke scholar, but I've studied some of his works. I can't quite figure where that uncited claim comes from. Do you know, Danny?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » A Pension Before Age 40: Are Military Benefits Too Rich? (5 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3..13~14~15~16~17~18 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.09 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |