1. Where are the stories on how the democrats have been obstructionists in Wisconsin? The republicans where accused of being obstructionists in the US congress when they couldn't even stop any thing.
2. Any one notice that when the dems ramed through Obama care the republicans didn't leave the country?
3. Saw union thugs being dragged out of capitol by police and breaking into the building...and I am wondering, where are the stories about how out of control these people are, leaving live ammunition on the ground around the capital and defacing public property. After all, weren't the Tea Parties called violent and hate filled, so shouldn't this be considered radical hate.
4. Michel Moore is sprewing a bunch of hate, there are death threats against republicans...if some thing happens, who si going to be blamed? Sarah Palin?
Just some thoughts...
1. At Fox News?
2. Where would they go? Pretty much every country on this planet (except mine and a few others) is more left-wing already than the US, there's no point in leaving...
3. You don't really watch the "Liberal Media," do you?
4. Michael Moore is a bit too radical, but (, along with a few others,) necessary, because the US no longer has a political left wing. You have the centre-right, and the far-right wing (Dems and Reps, respectively).
"because the US no longer has a political left wing. You have the centre-right, and the far-right wing"
How anyone can say that with a straight face is beyond me.
I agree with you 100%.
I was thinking the exact same thing.
Very easily. Ever notice how pretty much every country in the world is more left-wing (with even the conservative parties being more left wing) than the US is? The Democrats, on a World scale, are centre or centre-right. The Republicans, on a World scale, are right or far-right.
The reason why you think this is weird, or funny, or impossible is because of your own US-centric worldview. (Don't get me wrong, the US is a large country, with lots of people and things happening all the time - it would surprise me if your worldview wasn't US-centric.)
I know that.... Americans are a very different people politically. Our ancestors left that socialist hell hole for freedom.
We (most of the population) does not want any of this socialist / communist BS coming out of Washington... We do not want our debt to be $14 trillion, w/ 110 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
And look how well the far left ways are working out. Middle-East is going bat shit insaine, and many euopean countries ((I.E. Greece & friends)) are having solvency problems...
Ummm...It doesn't work?
And H.C. is not a right, if the 'right' takes some thing from some one else, it isn't.
Let me give you a better, more indepth answer.
When you ask what society needs to do for the poor you are accepting the collectivist premise that everyone's life belongs to society, and that you as a member of the society has the right to dispose of them, to set their goals, and plan the distribution of their efforts.
I do not accept others miss-fortune ((I.E. Lack of H.C.) as a mortgage on my life, or any one elses.
Then you're a very selfish individual with a huge sense of entitlement. You wouldn't just be paying for other people's health care, you'd be paying for your own and your families and friends.
Why does pretty much every other industrialised nation on the planet have a national health service and the richest and most "advanced" one doesn't? If you're taken ill here in the UK, you're guaranteed treatment at no cost. In the US, you have a clearly defined tiered system. If you're taken ill and have a low income and can't afford the medical bill, you risk bankrupting yourself and your family, or you die. That is NOT acceptable to most people of this earth. We may not have the best system here in the UK, but at least people don't die because they're poor.
It sickens me to think that people oppose these things. Learn some humanity and compassion towards your fellow man.
Dictionary Deff. of selfishness: Concern with ones own interests. So, yes, I am a very selfish person.
Do you even read what you type? Do you not realize the HUGE contradiction in terms you have. I have a huge sense of entitlement, I seriously ROFL'ed. I am sitting here denouncing entitlements.
This notion that HC is free, is complete and utter bull shit, some one is paying for it.
Only individuals have the right to decide when and if they want to help others. Society as a political institution has no rights in the matter at all.
And your debt in your country is approaching 80% of GDP, you won't be able to keep that system going much longer.
Quote from Objectivist Ethics, by Ayn Rand:
It is men's view of their public or political existance that the collectivized ethics of altruism has protected from the march of civilization and has preserved as a reservoir, a wild-life sanctuary, ruled by the mores of prehistorical savagery. If men have grasped some faint glimmer of respect for individual rights in their private dealings with one another, that glimmer vanashes when they turn to public issues - and what leaps into the political arena is a caveman who can't conceive of any reason why the tribe may not bash in the skull of any individual it so desires.
The distinguished characteristic of such tribal mentality is: the axiomatic, the almost "instinctive" view of human life as the fodder, fuel or means for any public project.
The examples of such projects are innumerable: "Isn't it desirable to clean up the slums?" (dropping the context of what happens to those in the next income bracket) -- "Isn't it desirable to have beautiful planned cities, all of one harmonious style?" (Dropping the context of whose choice of style is to be forced on the home builders).
"Isn't it desirable to have an educated public?" (Dropping the context of who will do the educating, what will be taught, and what will happen to the decentors)
"Isn't it desireable to liberate the artists, the writters, and the composers from the burden of financial problems and leave them free to create?" (dropping the context of which artists, writers and composers? Chosen by whom? - At whose expense?
All public projects are mausoleums, not always in shape, but always in cost.
The next time you encounter one of those "Public-spirrited" dreamers who tells you rancorously that "Some very desirable goals cannot be achieved without everybody's participation," Tell him that if he cannot obtain everybody's VOLUNTARY participation, his goals had jolly well better remain unachived - and that men's lives are not his to dispose of.
And, if you wish, give him the following example of the ideals he advocates. It is medically possible to take the corneas of a man's eye imediately after his death and transplant them to the eyes of a living man who is blind, thus restoring his sight (in certain types of blindness). Now, according to collectivized ethics, this poses a social problem. Should we wait until a man's death to cut out his eyes, when other men need them? Should we regard everybody's eyes as public property and devise a "fair method of distribution"? Would you advocate cutting out a livings man's eye and giving it to a blind man, so as to "equalize" them? NO? Then don't struggle any further with questions about "Public projects" in a free society. You know the answer. The principal is the same.