It Is All About Control
by Big Dog on Mar 24, 2010 at 20:39 Political
I have told you time and again that the health care takeover is not about health and not about care. It is about control. It is about the government controlling our lives. The progressives have been very coy about this by veiling their arguments in faux compassion and concern for those who have no health care insurance. Everyone has access to health care, the question is, who will pay for it?
The fact that most people are happy with what they have is of no consequence to progressives and they ignored these people to revamp the entire system to “take care” of the small portion that cannot pay. There were plenty of ways to fix that problem without interfering with everyone else but those solutions would not allow the government to gain control and that is the only thing it wants.
According to Representative John Dingell:
“The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.” Breitbart [emphasis mine]
To control the people. This is what they want and now it has been verbalized by one of the enemy.
Make no mistake about it, the government wants to control each and every one of us and it has moved closer to that with this health care takeover.
If it were about a true concern for people it would take place sooner and well before Obama has to run for reelection. But until that time, the same number of people will be uncovered and will die each and every day. Of course the same number of people will die even after this is fully implemented.
Control. It is how the Marxists rule over the serfs.
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: control, health care, lies, Marxists, Obama
Wait, now we’re Marxists? I thought you thought we were socialists. Or was that fascists? Communists? Statists? Settle on one. Or you could just call us by what we are: progressives.
We don’t want total control of anyone’s lives. That’s just a lie your side made up because you couldn’t challenge our ideas on a level playing field. It fits nicely with all the other lies you tell like saying we’re going to make you pay for our children’s abortions, kill your grandma for being too old, force your children to get sterilized to cut down population, take away all your guns so you can’t defend yourself, take away your wealth so everybody has the same amount of money, take away the baby Jesus so you can’t believe in anything, let gays marry to destroy traditional marriage and so on.
But see, we just want a few things like affordable health care for all, affordable education for all, a cleaner environment, safer communities, safety nets for workers so losing your job doesn’t destroy anyone, consumer protections, etc. We know those cost money. We’re not stupid. We support higher taxes on the upper percents and lower taxes on the lower percents. The folks at the top have benefited the most from the hard work of those below them and the folks at the bottom need the biggest break sometimes to help them get by.
That’s reality but you of course don’t deal in reality do you? Reality doesn’t resonate with the rubes that talk radio and Fox News whip up into a frenzy every week. Lies resonate so much better…
You see, you “progressives” believe that health care is a right, and it is not- you believe that education is a right, and it is not- indeed, asignorant as you all are about the Constitution, you might benefit by actually READING the document, rather than spouting the Marxist talking points.
Of course, even reading the Constitution doesn’t guarantee that you have either the acumen or the intellect to actually UNDERSTAND it.
Adam–“That’s reality but you of course don’t deal in reality do you?”
Your the one who doesn’t deal in reality.
ie.–But see, we just want a few things like affordable health care for all, affordable education for all, a cleaner environment, safer communities, safety nets for workers so losing your job doesn’t destroy anyone, consumer protections, etc.
Sounds like a nice utopia and that is exactly what all Leninist, Marxist, Nazi, Communist dictators promised to the people before taking over the countries that they did because the people all voted for them because they believed all the false promises because the truth is no government can provide that. That list of things those are not rights. To take money from people for it and to try and impose it is legalized THEFT AND TYRANNY.
THE DECLARATION–these are your rights–
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid world.
And the founders list 27 reasons for their Declaration. Some of them sound very similar to what is being done to us starting with FDR to this President and Congress. #27 He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us….I can see it coming.
I don’t know exactly when we will reach our right to abolish it and establish a new one but it is coming. This last weekend was a huge step.
The Constitution states:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort
So how did Victoria commit treason? I wonder if all the states used force to remove the federal government would that be treason since treason is levying war against the states. Not that I want to see that, just curious what they meant. Was the North guilty of treason when it waged its war of aggression on the South?
The Declaration sounds like it provoked treason. But our Founders said it was our right and duty to throw of tyrannical government. I think there are many peaceful ways to do that. The first is for the states to start asserting their rights and telling the feds to stay out of their business. Then we should vote all of them out of office and start with new, fresh people.
If all else fails we can have a Constitutional Convention.
A civil war would be way down the list.
The problem is that this government is provoking people. It wants those opposed to be engaged in violence so it can crush them.
We need to use peaceful means to accomplish our goals.
“So how did Victoria commit treason?”
I didn’t say she committed treason. I simply said she is invoking ideas that if carried out would be treasonous.
It’s amazing to me that many folks from your side considered questioning the actions of President Bush in a time of war to be treasonous yet some of you now openly wish for a revolution to over throw our government. Don’t even pretend you’re talking at the ballot box because that is simply voting and not a real form of revolution. This is wonderful, delicious hypocrisy.
“Sounds like a nice utopia and that is exactly what all Leninist, Marxist, Nazi, Communist dictators…”
Except we have a democratically elected progressive President and a democratically elected progressive majority in Congress. That’s sort of like a dictatorship though, right?
Feel free to try and abolish our government simply because you disagree with the policies of our democratically elected leaders. I look forward to seeing you and people like you in prison for such treason.
Let us remember that you progressives consider Chavez Democratically elected.
He wasn’t democratically elected? Let’s not confuse anything that is going on inside the US with Chavez’s recent trend from democratically elected and very popular leader to authoritarian and the beginnings of dictatorship.
I have done nothing except to state the truth and you wish me in prison. You are a true Obamite.
Call me old fashioned. I just don’t consider it patriotic for you to call for the overthrow of my government simply because you disagree with the democratically elected leaders. I was probably wrong to say you should be in prison. You probably just need some psychiatric help.
So now you call me crazy and treasonous. Keep on going, but I will not call you old fashioned because old fashioned people believed in the foundations of this country and that is exactly what this president does not believe in nor the Constitution.
“So now you call me crazy and treasonous.”
Yes to both. Stop writing crazy and treasonous things and I’ll stop calling you crazy and treasonous. It’s a simple formula.
I look forward to a peaceful overthrow of the government in November.
Sounds fine to me I suppose though I in no way agree that voting for new leaders is a form of overthrow as if to some how water down Victoria’s obviously treasonous response to not winning the 2006 and 2008 elections.
Once again Adam, the definition of Treason is not met by her statements. I know the Constitution is not something you know a lot about, being progressive and all, but the definition is clear and she has not met it.
You are using the Alinksy method in your attack on her. Won’t work here.
“Once again Adam, the definition of Treason is not met by her statements.”
And once again I’m simply saying what she calls for is treason and not that she has committed treason just by saying so.
“You are using the Alinksy method in your attack on her. Won’t work here.”
Of course I am. And of course it won’t. You know far more about Alinsky than anybody, strangely enough…
Adam, once you have known Jesus, the government could take everything pertaining to Him away and christians would still never forget Him. To know him is to love Him and to understand how much He loves us. Yes, he loves you very much even if you don’t know if He exists. However, He doesn’t go against our will, so if we choose to not accept Him then we accept hell. My prayer for you is that Jesus gives you and Darrell a vision of hell so that you will know it is real. Once you have wisdom, you will be able to see what is going on in America as we are in the end times. When those who believe in Jesus are raptured into heaven, those who don’t believe will be left behind to go through the horrible tragedies that will take place. Adam, do yourself a favor and really start searching for Him. He will make Himself known to you if you are sincere in your pursuit of Him.
“Adam, do yourself a favor and really start searching for Him.”
Eh? What are you going on about now? I thought I had already found Jesus at the church I regularly attend.
No Adam, I do not confuse the manner in which elections are carried out in the two countries. I merely point out that you guys also apply the definition of Democratically elected to Chavez.
I also note that Bush was Democratically elected but that did not stop you folks from acting out.
I thought dissent was patriotic. I never saw where you wrote about the leftists marching in DC calling for the destruction of the government and its overthrow.
Seems to me that the First Amendment gives people the right to express those feelings. The Constitution also requires an act, not a thought, for there to be treason.
“I also note that Bush was Democratically elected but that did not stop you folks from acting out.”
We “acted out” because Bush was elected under questionable circumstances…twice. So, yeah. What’s your excuse?
“I thought dissent was patriotic. I never saw where you wrote about the leftists marching in DC calling for the destruction of the government and its overthrow.”
Stop with the distortions. I have never attended a protest that wasn’t peaceful and geared toward social action as opposed to the “destruction of the government and its overthrow.” Don’t make stuff up.
There you go again. I said you never wrote about, not that you attended, you stop making things up.
You certainly saw enough of the violence committed by the people protesting this country to have a comment. You missed it somehow.
Under questionable circumstances to you. He was elected fairly in both 2000 and 2004. But you guys went nuts.
We have every right to hold the government accountable. It governs with our consent and we are looking to withdraw that consent for those who currently have it.
Don’t associate the actions of a small minority with the millions of hard working patriotic people who are peacefully protesting.
And how do we know some of this is not from antagonists who want to advance the Socialist agenda. What better way than to plant people who make those opposed look bad?
Let’s remember that all these progressives have no problem with Bill Ayers and he was and remains a violent terrorist. Where were all these crybabies saying that they are afraid when Ayers was blowing up government buildings and police stations??
“There you go again. I said you never wrote about, not that you attended, you stop making things up.”
Fair enough. Yet, I have never condoned a violent over throw of the government nor supported any person who has so I don’t see your point.
“Let’s remember that all these progressives have no problem with Bill Ayers…”
Yes, because every progressive in America has a Bill Ayers poster on their wall, right? Ayers is a nobody that most folks would have never heard of or cared about had the right wing not flipped their lid about it. Don’t act like he’s some progressive hero.
“We have every right to hold the government accountable.”
Absolutely. Yet you have no right to overthrow it because you disagree with it’s policies. It’s not a tyranny just because the democratically elected leaders are mostly liberal and not conservative right now. Get over it.
From Audacity of Hope: Obama– ‘I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.’
Which would you call more treasonous–that fact that I stated what was in the Declaration of Independance or the above?
Good point Victoria. Obama makes it clear that he would commit treasonous acts, you quoted the Declaration.
Perhaps Adam can weigh in.
Maybe he did not recognize what you cited…
What on earth is even remotely wrong about Obama’s statement, let alone treasonous? Get real.
You quoted from the Declaration of Independence in order to say you hope to abolish our government and establish a new one, did you not? The Declaration of Independence was sure not a document talking about going to the polls to vote against politicians you disagree with, right? So why run from your statements when I call you out on them?
You keep writing like the government is not responsive to the people even though we have free and fair elections EVERY year. Get over yourself.
Chavez has free and fair elections, according to him, is he responsive to the people?
What Obama said is treasonous by your standard.
Quoting from the Declaration is OK, it is a historical document. I think the point is, the people here will only take so much as has been demonstrated in the past.
And make no mistake, you keep saying “you” I have called for no such thing.
I only make the point that we established this country by overthrowing one government. I am not calling for any violence, just getting rid of who we have running the country.
“Chavez has free and fair elections, according to him, is he responsive to the people?”
Again, what does Chavez have to do with the US? We have actual free and fair elections, not just free and fair according to me. What is your point?
“Quoting from the Declaration is OK, it is a historical doc**ent.”
Of course. It’s not treason to quote from the document and it’s not really treason to say you want to overthrow the government. This is exactly why I said:
“I only make the point that we established this country by overthrowing one government.”
Yes, we overthrew British tyranny. We fought and died to be free. Stop comparing that to a democratically elected majority of progressives passing progressive legislation you disagree with. Get over yourselves. This is not tyranny and you know it.
“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead.” In 21 words, Paine perfectly summed up the frustration faced by a conservative every time he attempts to debate an issue with a liberal.
Since when do you debate? To debate you have to actually present your argument and back it up with facts or logic.
And to suggest I have “renounced the use and authority of reason” makes me laugh. Right. Keep trying.
VIC: ““To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead.” In 21 words, Paine perfectly summed up the frustration faced by a conservative every time he attempts to debate an issue with a liberal.”>>
DAR
Let’s spank this in a way Thomas Paine would enjoy. First off, none of this comment by Victoria was written by her. She is just spouting a cut and paste recycled (and incorrect) insult rightwingers ignorantly like to pass around with each other.
She puts Paine’s comment in quotes but she didn’t put the rest of it in quotes even though she pinched this entirely from someone else word for word.
I don’t think Paine, great freethinker, deist and humanitarian that he was, would appreciate that sort of thing.
It’s astonishing how the far right goes to abuse Paine. They take his rants against monarchies and apply them to democracies. It’s ridiculous. Do they actually read his “Age of Reason?” No of course not. There is not the slightest chance Victoria has read it. Paine was a bigtime heretic and he famously ripped the Bible and Christianity to shreds in his “Age of Reason.” She should read it. I doubt she would quote Paine again.
And her quote is wrong anyway. Here is a little context and correction of that:
“The Crisis: LANCASTER, March 21, 1778
TO GENERAL SIR WILLIAM HOWE.
To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture. Enjoy, sir, your insensibility of feeling and reflecting. It is the prerogative of animals. And no man will envy you these honors, in which a savage only can be your rival and a bear your master.”
Link.
So he was roasting the conservative wackjobs of his day who even then held humanity in contempt and suffered from “insensitivity of feeling.” Good job Paine!
Incidentally, just three weeks ago, a local Thomas Paine preservation society honored me with a solid silver coin they had minted with Paine’s image on it. This was in appreciation for my efforts in promoting *reason* and teaching people about Thomas Paine. Maybe Victoria can let us know when she gets awarded one of those?
D.
——————-
“Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity.”
–Thomas Paine, Age of Reason, pg. 186
“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture. Enjoy, sir, your insensibility of feeling and reflecting. It is the prerogative of animals. And no man will envy you these honors, in which a savage only can be your rival and a bear your master.”
I like that better–describes you and libs and progressives pretty accurately. He may have been describing conservatives in his day but it was conservatives who founded this country and wrote the Declaration and Constitution. And it has served us pretty well and made this nation into the greatest and most prosperous nation up until now. One that has gone and freed many people from despots and dictators and poured money into countries after disasters. Did anyone offer to pour any money here after Katrina? And you Darrel can stand before God one day as you will and show him your medal and explain to him how smart you are.
VIC: “it was conservatives who founded this country and wrote the Declaration and Constitution.”>>
DAR
Rubbish. Jefferson is credited with most of it (probably influenced by his buddy Paine). Both were religious skeptics, deists and freethinkers. Jefferson called the Bible a pile of dung with a few diamonds in it. Paine was much less delicate than that.
And they came together and formed a Constitution that they left intentionally, godless.
I’ll let John Adams tell you about this:
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses . . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the
natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”
–“A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” [1787-1788], John Adams
VIC: “Did anyone offer to pour any money here after Katrina?”>>
DAR
Yes. Here is a list of the NINETY EIGHT countries that offered aid to the US after Katrina.
Let’s look at just the Cuban example:
“Cuba
One of the first countries to offer aid, Cuba offered to send 1,586 doctors and 26 tons of medicine. This aid was rejected by the State Department.[15] Also, before the 2006 World Baseball Classic, Cuba said they would donate their share of the winnings to Katrina victims to ensure the United States embargo against Cuba was not violated. However, after the tournament, the U.S. government refused to allow the donation” –ibid
Classy that Bush. Smart too.
VIC: “you… can stand before God one day… and explain to him how smart you are.”>>
DAR
I would gladly bring him up to speed. But if he was a little smarter, wouldn’t he already know?
D.
——————-
“As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen
[Muslims]; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
–Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11, signed by John Adams
You are wrong. However, I don’t in anyway care if you believe me or not.
Adam–“This is not tyranny and you know it.”
When this administration and congress don’t represent the people it is and don’t do what is in the best interest of the safety and soveriegnty of this nation it most certainly is.
And please don’t bother with the fact that you think that your “progressive idealogues,” are the majority. I don’t think they are, but I know that you think they are. So don’t bother.
I don’t think a majority of Americans call themselves “progressives” for sure. You lie about us so why would they want to be such evil people?
Yet ask a majority of Americans if they favor a cleaner environment, safer communities, better education, better health care, safety nets like unemployment and social security, consumer protections, FDIC bank coverage. These are progressive policies, not conservative polices.
There was a time when some Republicans were proud to be Progressive. Unfortunately conservatives spent the last century making liberal a dirty word and we have a majority of Americans that don’t even understand that they support a progressive agenda.
And that’s not to say every American is far left by any sense. But in terms of policies on the left and right let’s talk policy.
Which do you think concerns the average American more when he or she loses their job? The size of the federal government, amount of national debt, and all the illegals in the country? No, they worry about how they’ll support their family when they need food, clothing or health coverage. Progressive policy addresses that.
Which do you think concerns the average American more when they have a family? The fact that gays can be married or serve in the military, babies are being aborted and the ten commandments aren’t in the public square as much? No, they worry about whether their communities are safe and clean, that the food they buy isn’t poison, that they’re getting a good education, that they can afford to pay for health care if someone gets sick. Progressive policy addresses that.
Now you can go on and on about personal responsibility, or oh why should I pay taxes for blah blah, but you know the average American doesn’t care. You can quote your right wing talking points and you radical conservatives can gather in tea party protests and brandish guns at town hall meetings, but it doesn’t matter one bit because you don’t represent the average American any more than a hardcore leftist does.
And again you clearly have absolutely no sense of the word “tyranny” when you call the democratically elected government that supports policies you disagree with tyranny. You’ve been listening to conservative radio way too much.
It’s not tyranny, you just lost the election. Get over it. You’ll pick up seats this year and maybe the next year. There will be GOP presidents again. Then you somehow won’t consider this very same system tyrannical in any sense I bet, will you?
You have no clue because you close your eyes to what is going on and chose to think that the Tea Party is just a totally right wing bunch of wack jobs brandishing guns. But I know and they know that government it not the answer.
Adam–Which do you think concerns the average American more when he or she loses their job? The size of the federal government, amount of national debt, and all the illegals in the country? No, they worry about how they’ll support their family when they need food, clothing—
“You bet Americans are worried about jobs and economy and what do they get in return–one more huge monstrosity of an entitlement program that is going to bankrupt this country and burden our children and grandchildren–you think we are not @#$%^ssed off. You damn right we are @#$%ssed off. You think we are too stupid to know what is good for us and this country—think again. And it is not this.
“You think we are too stupid to know what is good for us and this country…”
I never said nor implied that and do not think it.
I think it is funny that Darrel rips Victoria for cutting and pasting when that is the bulk of his posts.
I never pass off someone else’s material as my own. That’s not honest.
I don’t think that anyone else has.
If an item is well known it need not be sourced. If you quoted the First Amendment and did not source it people would know where it came from.
As usual you didn’t read my comment carefully. I’m NOT complaining about quoting Paine, sourced or not. The Paine quote was put in quotes and acknowledged in the comment that followed. But the comment that followed the Paine quote was not her’s, was not in quotes and was plagiarized word for word from a Mr. Burt Prelutsky, as I showed with a link.
Victoria got busted.
Not a biggie but worth pointing out if you are posturing yourself a conservative with great reasoning skills. It would have been more honest to say, “as one commenter noted…”
I have no doubt most people desire the things you write Adam. They disagree on how to obtain them.
Adam, democratically elected governments can indeed be tyrannical.
And yes, I railed against the abuse of government when Republicans controlled everything. When it is abusive and tyrannical then it does not matter who is in charge, it is our duty to call them out.
Oh yes Adam, people have to worry about all those things. But tell me, why is it that the “progressive cities”, those run by Democrats have so many problems with crime, debt, homelessness and all the ills that progressives claim to cure?
Look at Baltimore, run by all the Democrats, and tell me why it is not better?
People would not have as many problems if government was not so intrusive.
Yes Victoria, if government is the answer it was a stupid question.
Yes they worry about illegal immigration (remember illegal Adam) because they are taking the jobs.
Obama is going to begin on Immigration now because he is deliberately trying to poke the electorate into something so he can crush it.
Hilarious and kooky.
I know some people are too stupid to run their own lives and need the government to do it for them.
I have done well without them. I pay my bills better than they do and don’t have to rob others to do it.
I always know better than government how to run my life and my family. ALWAYS.
“Adam, democratically elected governments can indeed be tyrannical.”
Really? In what way?
“Look at Baltimore, run by all the Democrats, and tell me why it is not better?”
Progressive policy isn’t designed to make the world perfect, just a little easier in bad times, a little safer most of the time, a little more sane all of the time. You would have to prove progressive policy has somehow made it worse and not better for there to be some point to your argument.
“I have done well without them.”
This is wrong of course. Take away the government and see how well you’d do. See how well our banks would protect your money and saving. See how well your guns and water buckets would work when there’s no police or fire department. See how you’d get along in your cars missing consumer safety features and driving on roads built by private industry. You don’t hate government when it works for you, you just hate government when you’re afraid you’ll never need it.
No Adam, we are talking about personal intervention. The items that government is designed to provide need to be in place which is why we have a government.
Don’t mix it up and try to keep on track.
Safer? Ever read about how violent Baltimore and cities run by progressives are?
Easier in tough times? How do we explain the dependency in good times?
“The items that government is designed to provide need to be in place which is why we have a government.”
And of course this list of “need” is narrowed down conveniently to include only those items which you and your family rely on, right? Anything else is just big government overreach?
“Safer? Ever read about how violent Baltimore and cities run by progressives are?”
Again, you’d need to prove they would be better off without the policy for there to be some argument there. This is something you offer no evidence for. Was Baltimore somehow an oasis of peace and prosperity before liberals took power there?
I don’t know Adam. I can’t think of a timer in my life where Baltimore was run by anyone other than Democrats. The legislature has been Democrat forever.
There’s just not an argument there. Progressive policy is not a means to utopia and never has been. The city is tough? That’s a shame but you have no evidence it has anything to do with progressive policy simply because other non-cities are safer. There are too many factors involved in the difference between urban and rural communities for it to be boiled down the way you want it to be.
And even comparing one city to the next you’re talking about a large number of factors: city size, population density, income distribution, etc. It would be very hard to compare one city to the next in any general way let alone to compare it based on progressive policy to somehow say progressive policy is to blame. You have no argument.
Bigd cherry picks one city and makes some assertions about. Here is a better example:
If rightwing, red, republican policies lead to better outcomes for society how come the sick red states are the welfare states mooching off of the healthy blue states?
Observe:
***
“In the ultimate irony of this entire [healthcare] debate, health care is worst precisely those states where Republicans poll best. The unhealthiest residents and worst health care systems can be found in those states (especially southern states) which most reliably back the GOP. And if health care reform passes, it will be blue state taxpayers who will fund the improved health care for their red state brethren.
The diagnosis isn’t pretty for Republicans committed to denying the health care their constituents need most of all. A 2009 UnitedHealth Foundation analysis of 22 indicators revealed that nine of the top 10 healthiest states voted for Barack Obama in 2008. Conversely, 9 of the 10 cellar dwellers backed John McCain in 2008; four years earlier, the 15 unhealthiest states voted for George W. Bush for President.”
Perrspectives
Fixed link:
Perrspectives
There are plenty of examples. Detroit, Baltimore, DC, New York. How healthy one is is, in part, the life choices they make.
The big cities that are run by progressives are in terrible financial shape and have plenty on welfare. This extends to states.
Just because the top ten healthiest states voted for Obama it does not mean anything. Look at the states and see what areas of the state voted for Obama. The large, liberal cities, voted for him and the areas outside them, the less populous areas did not.
And how many were red before?
It is a false argument.
Bigd: “It is a false argument.”>>
DAR
You forgot to show that. I’ll simplify:
Red states = welfare states subsidized by blue states
Red states = unhealthy states with the worse health care problems who will now be further subsidized… by the blue states.
Responding to this with the mere assertion “it’s a false argument,” doesn’t show anything.
Again the question you ducked: “If rightwing, red, republican policies lead to better outcomes for society how come the sick red states are the welfare states mooching off of the healthy blue states?”
Your political theories are put to practice in the states. And when practiced, they are found to be lacking.
D.
But they could compare to similar cities not run by Dems…
Continuing to say there is no argument does not make it true. There are plenty of similar sized cities. The reality is people tend to flock to places where they give away other people’s stuff.
The progressive policies keep people in poverty.
“Continuing to say there is no argument does not make it true.”
Then surely you can point me to a study that makes your case that progressive polices have hurt cities when compared to cities not run by the progressive politics you oppose.
“The progressive policies keep people in poverty.”
Is this another “common sense” thing or something you can actually back up with evidence?
There is plenty of evidence. A lot anecdotal but evidence none the less.
I don’t expect you to understand common sense.
So show me where it makes it better.
Makes what better? Poverty?
Bigd: “The progressive policies keep people in poverty.”
DAR
Let’s check that one:
“With the exception of president Nixon, poverty went up under every Republican president since 1961. Under every Democratic president since 1961, it fell.”
Dirty details here:
Reducing Poverty: Track Record of Democrats vs. Republicans.
D.
——————
And for a recent example:
“…On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country’s condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton’s two terms, often substantially.”
“…Bush’s record on poverty is equally bleak. When Clinton left office in 2000, the Census counted almost 31.6 million Americans living in poverty. When Bush left office in 2008, the number of poor Americans had jumped to 39.8 million (the largest number in absolute terms since 1960.) Under Bush, the number of people in poverty increased by over 8.2 million, or 26.1 per cent. Over two-thirds of that increase occurred before the economic collapse of 2008.”
The Atlantic
Where you make your mistake Darrel is in assuming that because a state is Blue it has all blue areas with all wealthy blue people. This is simply untrue and your links to falsehoods about red being welfare is bunk.
California is a blue state (though only in major cities) and it is going down the tube.
Texas, red except in a few cities and it is in much better shape than CA or NY. NY very wealthy state but on the brink.
Most every state is hugely red by territory and blue in heavily populated areas that vote dem and carry elections. Take a look at a map of the US by county and you can see how red the country is.
Health? get real. It is not close and by what measure did they use? Regardless, heath is largely dependent on lifestyle choice.
And the whole poverty stuff is bunk. They change the definition of poverty. If you change definitions you will get different results.
It is a fact that people are more free and do better in places led by conservatives.
Crime, poverty, all of it. You blame poverty on Republican presidents as if they could change the poverty in New York City, Detroit, Baltimore. No, Dems give us the conditions for poverty with labor unions demanding so much.
Yeah, and poverty was bad after Pearl Harbor as well.
Change definitions or the income level that constitutes poverty and you can make up any story you want.
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics…Samuel Clemens
Bigd: “Darrel is in assuming that because a state is Blue it has all blue areas with all wealthy blue people.”>>
DAR
I don’t assume that at all. To the contrary, I only assume that Blue states have more blue people. And they do. This makes my point and refutes yours.
Bigd: “your links to falsehoods about red being welfare is bunk.”>>
DAR
Again you provide mere assertion in place of references and argument. My claims are referenced and back up with verifiable data. Dismissing this as “bunk” is not a rebuttal. But what else can you do, you have no rebuttal because there is no rebuttal.
Bigd: “…people are more free and do better in places led by conservatives.”>>
DAR
That’s a comfortable myth you bought in to, but it is flatly refuted by the facts I provided above.
Again the question you ducked:
“If rightwing, red, republican policies lead to better outcomes for society how come the sick red states are the welfare states mooching off of the healthy blue states?”
D.
They are mooching off no one.
You have the inability to see the difference between densely populated areas of liberals and sparse populations of conservatives.
It is interesting because there are other things to consider. Do the red states in question have specialized hospitals where sick people come to get treated? It is all smoke and mirrors.
Bigd: “You have the inability to see the difference between densely populated areas of liberals and sparse populations of conservatives.”>>
DAR
Rebut the data. Turns out your “sparse populations of conservatives” are red states filled with folks mooching on the public teat at the expense of the hard working blue states who subsidize them. That’s the fact, Jack. You can’t answer my question because you don’t like the inevitable answer which derives from the data. The answer is, your red states have sicker health systems and they are on welfare and now they will have even more dollars flow from the blue states in order to help them get their act together. All while they hold public tantrum sessions to complain about it.
D.
Not the fact Jack. We have been round and round on this before. It is a bunch of crap.
I live in a blue state that is full of welfare people. The very bluie areas of Maryland live off the money from the very red areas of Maryland.
New York, the same, California, the same.
It is bunk but keep spewing those lies.
There are no rich liberals, they are all conservative. I heard your side say it all the time when running for office.