Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 381 To 390 Of 657 Comments
CBO ESTIMATES ON OBAMACARE TOP $1 TRILLION
It seems like the line of dispute is how to classify healthcare itself: is it a good/service, or is it a necessity?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 18.05.2009 @ 08:17
If its simply a good or service (like computers), thea private system (with all the pros and cons) seems like a good route.
If its a necessitiy (National Defense, Law Enforcement, Utilities), then having a more government-centric system (again, with all the pros and cons) seems to make sense.
I'm curious as to how many people that favor the free-market system do not have healthcare and vice versa.
@BD57:
Chuck got it, but I'll play along.
"so called ‘hard conservatives’ have policy views. Stronger military; missile defense; lower taxes, fewer regulations; respect for religion in American life; support for marriage (and so on)."
Those aren't policy views . . . those are preferences.
"Lower taxes" -- how low? 10%? 5%? 1% Zero? How is that Stronger military and missle defence getting paid for?
"Stronger military" -- Same problem, other way. Mandatory 20-year compulsory service? An M-1 Abrams in every driveway?
"Respect for Religion in life" -- this is like being for infants and puppies. It's a lovely sentiment that means nothing. What does being "for" religion mean? The government will hand out Bibles (that would certainly be "for" Religion)? If so, what version? If I'm a doctor, would you support my Religious view that I shouldn't have to treat a Jew because they killed the Christ? You respect religion in life, right?and so on . . .
I hesitate to speak for Moderates, but for me a moderate considers the issues for a specific, particular problem. How they come down will change as the facts change. Idealogues (Right and Left) don't care what the facts are, they have an answer before they even hear the question.
Let me use your "lower taxes" policy position again as an example. Do you honestly think Democrats and/or liberals think "higher taxes" is a positive policy position? That they sit around thinking "gee, things are going swell, but we just aren't taxing people enough!" I hope you realize that's nonsense. Or bigger government -- Dems want to create government agencies because they are bored? If all the percieved needs of their constituencies were met, and the budget was in surplus, do you think that Dems would vote to raise taxes? Create more unnecessary agencies? After all, they're "for" higher taxes and big government, right? That's their goal, right?
The funny thing is . . . I was always tought that this was the conservative viewpoint, rather than the liberal viewpoint. The old "roadblock" parable:
A Conservative and a Liberal are walking down the road, when they come across a roadblock running across the road. The Liberal became enraged. "This roadblock hampers travel on the road!" he thundered. "Let's drag it to the side immediately and improve how this road works for everybody!"
The Conservative put his hand on the Liberal's shoulder, holding him back for a moment while he spoke in a calming voice. "You are right, the roadblock does hamper travel", he said. "Perhaps moving it will be the best solution."
The Liberal became excited at that afirmation and surged forward to immediately dismantle the roadblock, but again the gentle hand of the Conservative gave him pause.
"Before we do proceed," The Conservative calmly said, "Perhaps you would clarify one small detail for me."
"Anything!" the Liberal said, eager to beging making the road a better one.
The Conservative leaned closer.
"Why is this roadblock here in the first place?" he whispered, as with a crash a giant boulder burst threw the woods on the side and rolled across the road, just on the other side of the roadblock.Sometimes roadblocks are a useless impediment and should be removed. Sometimes they serve a purpose. To go forward with the blanket position "all roadblocks must be torn down" or "All roads must be made as fast and useful as possible" is foolish.
Guess what? Every policy belief you listed for hard conservatives is one I hold. I am for the best military, protection from missle attack, paying fewer taxes, less regulatory hassle, respect for religion and marriage. However, I'm not for wasting Trillions of dollars on useless weapons platforms simply because a contractor wants to get paid, budgeting the government into debt, letting people and industries act with Anarchistic freedom, or government control of personal matters of conscience. What's the difference? well, after removing out the jingo-istic buzzwords . . . the difference is dependent on the situation and facts.
Those policy positions are the mantra of the far right because they (a) sound good and (b) imply the far left are opposed to them. I'm for good things, you aren't in my "for good things club", so you must be against good things. If I say that the far left is for: helping your fellow man as Jesus tought, protecting citizens from being abused, guarding against oppressive government and protecting the environment for our children, does that mean the far right are for letting people be killed, oppression, and dumping toxic waste on maternity wards? Of course not.
What you identify as "what hard conservatives" are for is what EVERYBODY is for. Moderates balance those ideals against practical realities in particular situations. I guess hard conservatives never do (snark).
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 23.05.2009 @ 13:30
@BD57:
"What are 'moderates' - beyond people who seem to think they’re somehow superior to people who aren’t as enlightened as they are?"
Dunno -- why are hard conservatives convincenced they are morally and intellectually superior to people who aren't as enlightened as they are?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 16.05.2009 @ 22:31
Isn't Crist . . . well, very well-liked and respected in Florida? This isn't just a "moderate vs. hard-liner" contest taking place in an objective vacuum. Even if theoretically Rubio is "stronger" philosophically speaking, he's gonna have a hell of an uphill battle against Crist.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 15.05.2009 @ 16:49
FIRE STEELE AND BRAND THE RUMPS OF RNC COMMITTEEMEN
Damn.
All day I was hoping that you'd be able to put a "this isn't as unbelievably stupid as it appears" spin on this.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.05.2009 @ 22:54
I don't understand the Republican's fealty to the Jesus wing. Its not like they're going to go vote Democratic.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.05.2009 @ 12:54
IS THE GOP ANTI-SCIENCE? OR JUST ANTI-RATIONALIST?
@foxfier:
Wow. Snark aside, you completely misread that post.
I never suggested Creationists are oposed to medicine, anymore than I suggested they believe that an atom can't be split. Both of those ideas are examples of belief conflicting with the realities of the material world. The splitting atom example is a hypothetical (I don't know of any religion that holds, as a tennant of faith, that atoms can't be split). The prohibition against medicine is a real component of some Christian sects . . . as are the criminal prosecutions that have resulted when prayer didn't save children's lives (fun fact: Medicare reimburses the prayer healers for their services).
Also . . . both of those examples I SUPPORTED a person's right to believe in them:"***Feel free*** to believe that only prayer can heal your child . . . but don’t get upset when the authorities come and arrest you for negligent homicide."
Do you disagree with that? Do you feel that a person's honest belief that God prohibits the use of medicine is wrong? If they are premitted to believe that, should society take no action if a parent lets their child die when there were means available to save them?
Faith shouldn't direct the material, that was and is my point. I don't care if a person (NOT Creationists) believe, as a matter of faith, that the morning after pill is murder. I do mind when that person, as a pharmacist, now imposes their belief on others by morally deciding what medicine people should have access to.Creationists can believe whatever they like. When people start rejecting factual data as a result of their faith, then it becomes a problem because it affects me. Believe the universe popped into fully formed existence in less than a week? Goodie. Maybe we should start basing our governmental policies on that? Certainly makes the energy issue easier to deal with . . . don't have to worry about running out of oil, since it can appear in one day should the Creator wish it (and the Deity certainly isn't going to let the Faithful suffer, being a Merciful Power). No worries, right?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.05.2009 @ 06:30
@foxfier:
" my group will still have a better grasp of hard sciences– even if they don’t agree with all of your favorite little theories."
Well, I guess you win then. Such irrefutable and overwhelming factual evidence. I had no idea it was your opinion on the matter -- I'll certainly say no more in the face of such powerful and persuasive debate.
By the way, I just double-checked my posts in this thread. I can't find a single attack on a single religion or religious theory, so I'm not too sure where you felt the need to leap to the defense of the unfairly persecuted as I not only didn't attack anybody's religious faith but at least twice clearly defended faith.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.05.2009 @ 22:02
The closest I got was in rejecting Creationism. That's not religious -- it an alleged geologic concept rooted in religion. As I said, faith don't make science.
Whoops! My bad -- its your opinion that rejecting Creationism is an attack on religion, and as we've already established if you think it then its correct. Thanks for straightening me out there -- its so helpful having someone explain to me what I'm saying and meaning. How do the rest of humanity get along without such guiding light?
@bald ninja:
"does anyone have any actual evidence that social conservatives are anti-science?"
Are there people who are both members of the "so-con" group and the "whack-a-doodle" group? I do know some Whack-a-doodles, and they are so-cons in addition to being Whack-a-Doodles.
Are there so-cons that aren't anti-science? Well, you're one, so again clearly the answer is "yes".
I think the reason the so-cons get so brightligned in with the Young-Earthers and such is twofold. First, many of the so-con principles and ideas are arguably tracable to conservative Christian dogma, and the whack-a-doodles almost uniformly also trace their whack-a-doole-ness to conservative Christian dogma. Doesn't mean anything in and of itself, since there's multiple flavors of conservative Christian dogma (as well as multiple interpretations for each) but its a perceived association.
That ties into the second connection. Surely not all so-cons are whack-a-doodles, but I'm hard pressed to find one whack-a-doodle that isn't a so-con. So-cons and W-a-Ds may be sitting on different benches in the building, but the benches sure as heck are grouped together, and for somebody looking in quickly at a distance from the outside the similarities seem to outweigh the differences.No question its not fair that you and yours get generalized in with the W-a-Ds, but sloppy generalizations are unfortunately the way people deal with issues like this. Obama is more liberal than you? Then he's a commie-socialist-facist-dictator-cultleader-Martian. Refuse to utterly reject Global Warming? Then you're a Goreian-treehugging-commie-anticapitalist. Easier than thinking about things, I guess.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.05.2009 @ 21:42
@Foxfier:
You misunderstood me. I don't give a hairy damn about their religion. In full disclosure, I don't give a damn about anybody's religion except my own.
Everybody in this country can believe, or not believe, whatever the hell they like. If your religion teaches you that atoms can't be split, good for you -- but just because you believe it reeeeeeeeealy strongly doesn't make it so. Feel free to believe that Yahweh prohibits using medicine. Feel free to believe that only prayer can heal your child . . . but don't get upset when the authorities come and arrest you for negligent homicide. When faith is used to change fact, then its a problem for our society, and as a member (and beneficiary) of that society now its a problem for me. When faith is used as a substitute for fact, then the problem grows exponentially.In regards to GW . . . lets just for giggles postulate that GW hasn't been "proven" to a 100% level of certainty. Do I understand correctly from your post that there is ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, no empirical data indicating it whatsoever? EVERY study, EVERY scientist . . . utter and total bullfeces? You don't believe it, goodie for you. But to therefore completely reject even the possibility as a result . . . well, in regards to the issue of "substituting belief for reason", I give you Exhibit A.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 12.05.2009 @ 12:50
