One American's Rage Spills Over: Dear Liberal... Here's Why I'm So Hostile
Submitted by Jeremy Choate via Sufficient Reason blog,
This essay is a bit of departure from my usually reasonable and logical approach to important issues. That’s not to say that the essay isn’t well-reasoned and is bereft of logical argumentation, but I freely admit that it’s polemical, in nature. Sometimes you’re just pissed, and you need to vent. Here’s my vent…
Lately, I must admit that my hostility towards your political ilk has ramped up, pretty dramatically. No, it’s not because we, at this point in my life, have a half-black president in the White House, and I’m some closet racist who is becoming increasingly frustrated at the prospects of the White Man’s power slipping through my fingers. I know that you’ve accused our side of such nonsense, and the thought keeps you warm at night, but I can assure you that it is a comfortable fiction of which you should probably divest yourself.
Now before I waste too much of your time, let’s establish who I’m talking to. If you believe that we live in an evil, imperialist nation from its founding, and you believe that it should be “fundamentally transformed”, lend me your ears. If you believe that the free market is the source of the vast majority of society’s ills and wish to have more government intervention into it, I’m talking to you. If you believe that health care is a basic human right and that government should provide it to everyone, you’re the guy I’m screaming at. If you think minorities cannot possibly survive in this inherently racist country without handouts and government mandated diversity quotas, you’re my guy. If you believe that rich people are that way because they’ve exploited their workers and acquired wealth on the backs of the poor, keep reading. Pretty much, if you trust government more than your fellow American, this post is for you.
First of all, let me say that we probably agree on more things than you think. Even between Tea Party Patriots and Occupy Wall-Streeters, I’ve observed a common hatred of the insidious alliance between big business and big government. As Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) so correctly noted, government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers in corporate America, and no person, organization, union, or corporation should have their own key to the back door of our government.
Second, contrary to popular belief, conservatives really are concerned with the plight of the poor in this nation. You accuse us of being uncompassionate, hateful, racist, and greedy, but studies have shown that when it comes to charitable giving, conservatives are at least (if not more, depending on the study you read) as generous as liberals in caring for the poor. The difference between us is not in our attitude towards the problem – it’s our attitude towards the solution. We believe that the government does practically nothing well (since without competition or a profit motive there is no incentive to do well) and has made the plight of the poor far worse than it would have ever been had government never gotten involved. For a stark example of this, look no farther than the condition of the black family in America since the “War on Poverty” began. You believe that more government is the answer, and that if we only throw more money at the problem, the problem will go away. We believe, as Reagan so aptly stated,
Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem.
Third, as people who might actually have to avail ourselves of a doctor’s services at some point in our lives, we are just as concerned with the condition of America’s healthcare system as you are. While we believe that America has the world’s most capable physicians, has the world’s most innovative pharmaceutical industry, and is on the cutting edge of medical technology, we also understand that the delivery system is far from perfect. However, unlike you, we see a grave danger in turning the administration of that delivery system over to the same entity that is responsible for giving us the United States Postal Service. There are private sector solutions that should certainly be explored before we kill the system, altogether, by giving it to the government to run.
Now that we’ve touched on a couple of points of common ground, allow me to explain my aggressiveness towards your efforts to implement your progressive agenda. First, let’s talk about the word “progressive”, since you now seem to prefer that word to “liberal”. In order to label something as progressive or regressive, one must have some idea as to what constitutes progress. What is the ideal towards which you are striving? An idea is considered progressive if it moves us closer to the ideal and regressive if it moves us further away. So, what is your ideal society?
Though I can’t begin to discern the thoughts of every liberal who may read this, nor can I assume that every liberal has the same notion of an ideal society, in my arguments with liberals over the years, I couldn’t help but notice the influence that FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has had in shaping the beliefs of the modern liberal with regards to domestic policy. The rights that FDR cited are:
- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
- The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
- The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
- The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
- The right of every family to a decent home;
- The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
- The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
- The right to a good education.
At this point, you’re probably screaming, “Right on!!”, and who can blame you? What sane person in the world doesn’t want everyone to be gainfully employed, adequately fed, smartly clothed, appropriately sheltered, and properly educated? These are the goals of every moral society on the planet, however we cannot ignore the fundamental question of, “At what cost?”
I’m not sure whether FDR was a shallow thinker or simply a shrewd, Machiavellian politician, but the fact that he framed each of these ideals as a human right should be troubling to every freedom-loving person in America. After all, what does it mean for something to be a human right? Doesn’t it mean that it’s something to which you are entitled simply by virtue of your being human? Let’s think about some of the basic rights that the real Bill of Rights delineates: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to petition the government, freedom to bear arms, freedom from illegal search and seizure, etc.
If you’re moderately intelligent and intellectually honest, you’ll quickly see what separates the rights laid out in the real Bill of Rights from those laid out in FDR’s misguided list – none of the rights listed above require the time, treasure, or talents of another human being. Your right to speak requires nothing from anyone else. Your right to practice your religion requires nothing from any of your fellow citizens. Your right to bear arms means that you are allowed to possess weapons to defend yourself and your family, but it makes no demand that a weapon be provided to you by anyone. A true human right is one that you possess, even if you’re the only person on the entire planet – and it is unconditional.
FDR’s list is no “Bill of Rights”. It’s a list of demands. If I have a right to a job, doesn’t that mean that one must be provided to me? If I have a right to adequate food, clothing, and recreation, doesn’t that mean that I am entitled to those things, and someone should provide them to me? If I have an inherent right to a decent home, once again, doesn’t that mean it should be provided to me, regardless of my ability to afford one or build one for myself?
You might protest that FDR only meant that we have the right to pursue those things, but that’s not what he said, and why would he? If we live in a free society, our right to pursue those things is self-evident, is it not? Besides, if he only believed in our right to pursue those things, he would not have felt the need to implement the New Deal.
You may be getting anxious, now, wondering what FDR’s Second Bill of Rights has to do with my antipathy towards your political philosophy. It’s quite simple – your political beliefs are a threat to liberty – not just for me, but for my three boys and their children as well. I care much less about the America that I’m living in at this very moment than I do about the one that I’m leaving Nathaniel, Charlie, and Jackson.
How does your political bent threaten my and my sons personal liberty, you ask? In your irrational attempt to classify things such as clothing, shelter, health care, employment, and income as basic human rights, you are placing a demand upon my time, my treasure, and my talents. If you believe that you have a right to health care, and you are successful in persuading enough shallow thinkers to think as you do, then it will place a demand upon me to provide it to you. If you believe that you have a right to a job, and more than half of America agrees with you, as a business owner, I am obligated to provide one to you, even if it means making my business less profitable.
The fact is, you can rail against my conservatism all you wish. You can make fun of my Tea Party gatherings, and you can ridicule patriots in tri-corner hats until you wet yourself from mirth, but one thing is for certain: my political philosophy will NEVER be a threat to your freedom. If you feel a burning responsibility to the poor, conservatism will never prevent you from working 80 hours per week and donating all of your income to charity. If you feel a strong sense of pity for a family who cannot afford health insurance, my political philosophy will never prevent you from purchasing health insurance for this family or raising money to do so, if you cannot afford it, personally. If you are moved with compassion for a family who is homeless, a conservative will never use the police power of government to prevent you from taking that family in to your own home or mobilizing your community to build one for them.
However, you cannot say the same for liberalism. If I choose not to give to the poor for whatever reason, you won’t simply try to persuade me on the merits of the idea – you will seek to use the government as an instrument of plunder to force me to give to the poor. If we are walking down the street together and we spot a homeless person, using this logic, you would not simply be content with giving him $20 from your own pocket – you would hold a gun to my head and force me to give him $20, as well.
Everything that modern liberalism accomplishes is accomplished at the barrel of a government rifle. You do not trust in the generosity of the American people to provide, through private charity, things such as clothing, food, shelter, and health care, so you empower the government to take from them and spend the money on wasteful, inefficient, and inadequate government entitlement programs. You do not trust in the personal responsibility of the average American to wield firearms in defense of themselves and their families, so you seek to empower the government to criminalize the use and possession of firearms by private citizens. Everytime you empower the government, you lose more of your personal liberty – it’s an axiomatic truth.
What angers me the most about you is the eagerness with which you allow the incremental enslavement to occur. You are the cliched and proverbial frog in the pot who has actually convinced himself that he’s discovered a big, silver jacuzzi. Somehow, you’re naive enough to believe that one more degree of heat won’t really matter that much.
I have the utmost respect for a slave who is continuously seeking a path to freedom. What I cannot stomach is a free man who is continuous seeking a path to servitude by willingly trading his freedom for the false sense of security that government will provide.
I am reminded of Samuel Adams’ impassioned speech where he stated:
“If ye love wealth (or security) better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”
Servitude can exist in a free society, but freedom cannot exist in a slave nation. In a free country, you have the liberty to join with others of your political ilk and realize whatever collectivist ideals you can dream up. You can start your own little commune where the sign at the front gate says, “From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”, and everyone can work for the mutual benefit of everyone else. In my society, you have the freedom to do that.
In your society, I don’t have the same freedom. If your collectivism offends me, I am not free to start my own free society within its borders. In order for collectivism to work, everyone must be on board, even those who oppose it – why do you think there was a Berlin Wall?
In conclusion, just know that the harder you push to enact your agenda, the more hostile I will become – the harder I will fight you. It’s nothing personal, necessarily. If you want to become a slave to an all-powerful central government, be my guest. But if you are planning to take me and my family down with you, as we say down here in the South, I will stomp a mud-hole in your chest and walk it dry.
Bring it.
(84 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Yes, a VOTE has value if it's wholesale voting records that are being bought and sold. And only then.
I don't think there's a better barometer for Liberty Adoption Rate than a rhetorical conservative vs liberal letter.
Looks like we're still fucked for at least another decade, minimum, athough this level of ignorance can only truly be resolved with a severe purging, which will probably take half a century.
The pendulum of liberty is still on the upswing towards tyranny, and won't be reversing direction for a while yet. How do I know this. Because people are still posting letters proclaiming their loyal ignorance, I mean conservatism.
False dichotomy bitches.
Both sides are hypocrites although I find Conservatives more hypocritical with all the lip service they pay to reducing the size of FedGuv.
"I paid for that Social Security damnit, I' deserve it, now everyone else needs to reduce the size of FedGuv."
A good piece of discourse to ponder.
My belief is that we as a whole have forgotten what it means to be a [wo]man in the Common Law sense, [wo]men created the countries we live in in North America, however to become a [wo]man means we have to be able to provide for our families and protect them, and our property.
"The pen is mightier than the sword"
Under Common Law to lawfully protect a claim one must be able to make a claim against other [wo]men, to make a claim one must verify in open court the facts through speech, viva voce, or a better way is to use writing only. This is the means that was envisioned at the outset of North America, lands based on Common Law, with [wo]man near the top of pyramid, with only the Creator stationed higher. Underneath man was positioned, government, legal societies and their creations, statutory courts, corporations, and employees of these institutions.
You see we as [wo]men we have never been given the tools necessary to become adults, we remain children within the society we live in because we can't defend ourselves under Common law, and neither do we hold our employees(government) to a discipline that maintains the people's control over the public affairs of our society. This isn't our fault really, the government run education system didn't provide us with this knowledge, it would mean a sever curtailment of government power for one.
The legal society has masked the take over of our Common Law courts, so much so that it isn't till you get to the higher courts that Common law is even recognized by the Court staff when presented to them, lawyers and judges included. The oppression we see in the courts is Statutory Law, these codes were developed by a society other than the Common Law people, these are rules of the Legal Society, lawyers, judges, and their creations, the Corporations and Government, not the people.
The corporate banks and the companies they control along with the legal society have successfully taken over the government, that is Fascism, socialism for the rich. These banks are safely protecting themselves using Statutory Law, Limited liability of Corporations and control of the issuance of money give Banks immense power over us. With governments that make use of debt financing to fund themselves, and Central Banks that are functioning for the benefit of Private Banking Corporations rather than the people, our societies are being burdened unnecessarily with the Interest payments to these private entities.
You see, all of the fiscal short falls that governments and ourselves for that matter have stem from these private Corporations controlling our government, our Law system, our Money supply, and through our ignorance, us. We need to start taking control of these things to become adults in a Common Law society again.
Below is an illustration of how we can regain our collective fiscal adulthood, a Public Central Bank whose purpose was to benefit [wo]man was allowed to run for 40 years, and it built a nation. The following 40 years illustrates how removing the issuance of money through the people's bank has lead us to the brink in Canada, in the US you have the struggles of Andrew Jackson and the period from the 1820s to 1912 to remind you:
The Bank of Canada was instituted in 1934 to combat the Depression, the BOC had the charter to fund public infrastructure projects through the issuance of legal tender from the Treasury. Starting in 1936 the BOC funded farmers to replant the drought ridden prairies. Other public projects were funded and by 1939 Canada was out of the Depression, the only country to claim that in the world. The BOC was used to build the 3rd and 4th largest Navy and Army in WWII, funded the vets when they came back by getting them into a house and paying for college.
The BOC then went on to build modern Canada, the second largest nation on earth, airports, the St. Lawrence seaway, national highways, roads, railway spur lines, telecommunication infrastructure, hospitals, social programs, health care, etc. etc.. By 1974 the bill for these expenditures was $18 Billion, however in 1974 that changed.
The IMF and World Bank applied pressure on the Canadian government and Canada then began to fund itself through debt financing, issuing bonds to private Banks whom then issued currency to the government. The interest on the bonds then began to accrue, meanwhile infrastructure spending declined and the debt grew. By 2014 the debt grew to $600 Billion, the principal on the debt being an additional $19 billion, a total of $37 billion in 80 years, the remaining $563 Billion was the accrued interest owed from 1974 on.
This illustrates how destructive debt financing is, and how credit financing by issuing legal tender from the Treasury works, you have to praise Iceland for using credit based financing, a proven workable system.
To the "conservative American" who wrote this "piece" of shit!
Where have you been with your voice and wallet for the last 14 years brotha?...
Put your money where your mouth is then and walk off the reservation and let everyone see you do it by taking your money out of every American, British and Brussels bank and every defense contractor that you've been making money off of since 9/11 and pledge your allegiance to the disappearing act hanging on a wall at the U.S. Archives and start funding the mercenaries that will overthrow our current treasonous government in order to turn the page chapter and verse in order to START OVER!!
And if you took your money and were successful investing elsewhere in China then bring it back home to feed the insurrrection to keep the rest of the World safe from the current malevolent psychotic fascist oligarchy that you helped create through your own indifference for too long!
Otherweise shut your fucking pie hole because you're no better than the other side that gave us Social Security and the Union(s)!!!
Please point out the difference between the two sides. I don't see any.
Please point out the difference between the two sides. I don't see any.
"."
+100
+1000 The first sane, rational comments I have seen in the entire thread...cheers.
And the fact that you have 90% of the comment(s) on here is proof that the .gov "9/11 official narrative" and sheeple in Murika is too strong for any independent "out-of-the-box" credible thinking outside the two party system and why "over the cliff" will stay over the cliff to it's landing!
Happy New Year!
Nemoson, you wrote:
"...start funding the mercenaries that will overthrow our current treasonous government in order to turn the page chapter and verse in order to START OVER!!"
So that's your plan? That's what you've been up to?
Turning our government over to mercenaries whose loyalty is to those with the fattest wallets? Seriously?
How will your brotherhood of mercenary funders keep them under control? How does that not wind up with turning us over even more completely to the billionaires and banksters who got us into this mess?
As a propaganda attempt, this juvie rant doesn't even make the middle grade.
It's an old trick. Take what you hate or dislike, and call that "slavery." Whatever you want to promote, call it "freedom." Set up the argument as a choice between "slavery" and "freedom."
After all, who could possibly choose "slavery" over "freedom?" Only an idiot! Therefore I MUST be right!
The most laughable mistake in the argument is another false dichotomy -- the choice between "government interference" and a "free market." I'm tired of seeing this lie everywhere. No "Free Market" exists in a state of nature. Goverment _creates_ the "free market" inasmuch as it exists at all.
What a looney tune.
Wow. So what you are saying is that a government must exist in order for two people to exchange goods or services? Who's the looney tune?
No "Free Market" exists in a state of nature. Goverment _creates_ the "free market" inasmuch as it exists at all.
Am I to take that to mean government creates the free market by forcing people to be free?
Hahahahaha. Blah blah blah. All we need is a different set of rulers you say. There are no liberal or conservative rulers. They just use these themes to blame the problems on one group or another . one side says yadayada yada and the other. Does the same. While no one even notices. One group gets whatever it wants fuck you. Little minds talk about others
lol, all of this written by a person who "earns" their living sitting in an office sniffing his own exhaust. Wouldn't last a day out in the real world.
I found out today that Obama is a Republican conservative neocon by reading the comments here. He sure had me fooled. I thought he was an anti-war candidate turned left wing radical Marxist. I guess I have to keep reading more bullshit so I never get the truth.
I didn't see any real solutions offered.Back when Rockefeller ran Standard Oil, it was defined a monopoly and split into Chevron, Mobil and Esso/Exxon. Last quarters financial reporting on Internet advertising showed a $100 bn market with 92% market share held by two companies: Google and, to a lesser extent, Facebook. When umemployment spike some people seek out blogging, an Internet retail business, or a YouTube channel. Not that these are exclusive but you cannot run any of those businesses without running into Google and Facebook. They are Standard Oil type monopolies. For example, YouTube pays out about 50% of ad revenue to YouTubers. 50% gross margins is excessive. Many companies thrive on margins half that. So where is the anger from YouTubers? Unemployed single mother doesn't want to make $3000 a month instead of $1500? Google and Facebook are just inefficient deformed monopolies. In Facebook 's case they provide a platform for ISIS while censoring free speech about Islam in places like Germany.Where is the outrage?
None here. I don't give a fuck what you tube does.
I never see their ads.
Are you sure your qualified to determine how much money a business "should" make?
Perhaps rather than complain about ad revenues, Unemployed Mom could start her own Unemployed Mom blog showing off her starving cats and keep an evil capitalistic 100% of her advertisers funds.
"Buy Purina Cat Chow and you won't have starving cats like this lady."
Nice. I like it.
The goverment is their mommy and daddy. They dont want to, nor can they take care of themselves.
"I’m not sure whether FDR was a shallow thinker or simply a shrewd, Machiavellian politician, but the fact that he framed each of these ideals as a human right should be troubling to every freedom-loving person in America."
He was Machiavellian. They knew exactly what they were doing when they expanded the role and powers of feds including the engineering of the preceeding suffering/economic problems.
As far as conservatives caring about the poor It seems many of us who could be labeled "conservative" do care for the poor but if we were honest we would have to admit that there is a decent sized contingent that would be fine with them thrown in a wood chipper also. Compassion seems to be growing short these days. Just sayin.
But a kinder, gentler woodchipper.
blah! blah! blah! all you americans are good at is couponing! blah! blah! blah!
Simply stated, this is one of the best explanations of both liberalism and conservatism, their goals, and the consequences of achieving their goals. After many years on this good earth, I believe in both nature and nurture. I have become come to believe that I was born to be a free man, and will fight to the end to be free- I also believe that hardcore liberals do not believe this, they believe to exist, we require collectivism, this is in their genes also. I know I never will change, and also understand that they are unable to ever change. Thus the battle will continue.
Yes, if only all the liberals were eradicated, all our problems would be solved.
Seriously, who writes this shit? Emphasis on the 'shit' part.
Persuasion and understanding to conservative angst is what is desired, not destruction to the other politcal side. Sheesh.
They did wonders in Detroit and are doing a bang up job in Chicago!!!
Sorry to little to late. With the loss of the public education system to liberalism we simply now have too many uneducated public graduates voting and to few patriots left...
Conservative, liberal, right-wing, left-wing, republocrat, democrican...These words are so ill-defined that they've become completely meaningless.
Freedom is good; it's a means unto and end and an end unto itself. But there's a lot of confusion now, on "both" (as if there are only two ways of thinking) sides of the political spectrum. "Conservatives" pay a lot of lip-service to freedom, but ultimately the politicians and their supporters are traitors to the cause (Bush(es), Reagan, Nixon etc were no friends of freedom). Then "liberals" get confused and claim that freedom is bad because they associate it with "conservatives" who abuse their power. And on top of that, they support politicians who also engage in crony-capitalist war-mongering (Obama is pro Federal Reserve and continues the war machine) as they say they're fighting for the "common man".
Freedom, and the peace and prosperity that go with it, doesn't come from politicians; it comes from an enlightened population that, first, respects each others' rights and, second, will defend against aggressors of any form, "foreign" or "domestic", "private" or "government".
Why someone's opinion and disatisfaction made the headline news on ZH?
THE QUOTE IS PATRICK HENRY OF VIRGINIA NOT SAMUEL ADAMS
Stop barking this devisive crap. There is no "liberal" or "conservative". Democrat/Republican one and the same in that neither have the peoples' interests at heart. Artificial terms are used solely to divide and keep us weak. We have far more in common than we don't...as we're all common people.
Lost me when you quoted Paul Ryan. He is the problem along with the rest of congress
We are NOT the ones who are hostile. They are NOT liberal they are antiwhite.
They are attacking white people using forced assimilation. Google white genocide or search on youtube. Or look at the #whitegenocide hashtag.
Dear Mr. Angry Conservative,
-You're free to practice your religion as you please. Nobody is trying to stop that. Just stop trying to cram your dogma down everyone else's throats. We don't want to pay for it to be taught in school.
-Nobody, ever, has forced you to hire someone, so quit whining about "guaranteed employment". There is no such thing. Please, point me to where I can get a guaranteed job.
-The cool thing about the right to bear arms is that epidemiologically speaking, guns are much more likely to be used in commission of a crime, or to kill the owner or someone else by accident than to be used in self-defense. Oddly, every gun owner ever claims to be a "responsible" gun owner. Nobody ever claims to be the nutjob who plans a mass shooting or the idiot who keeps it under his pillow loaded and with the safety off while the kids are home alone. So, the onus now falls on the rest of society to try to figure out how the idiots are. Why is it that instead of helping us pass laws to figure out who the idiots are, you fight it at every turn?
-Your trust in the generosity of others is adorable. I'd believe it a lot more if you weren't first in line with your hand out every time a flood or hurricane hits. I guess the generosity of the conservative utopia in the South isn't enough? Or maybe your well-being is just worth more than everyone else's?
Dear No-Thinking Cunt,
Paragraph one:
Liberalism is personified by coerced dogma via regulation and .gov control.
Paragraph two:
Actually, through affirmative action, coerced hire does occur to the detriment of the business owner and those unhired for their skin color.
Paragraph three:
Cars are used for the benefit of society, yet they kill more people than guns.
400,000 smoking related deaths a year and 42,000 second hand smoking deaths per CDC yet gun are the problem. There are numerous other forms of death more probable yet you stand pat....LIKE A CUNT.
Paragraph four:
A hurricane or natural disaster is not the norm and all apply for assistance yet you cite incorrect geographical ad hominem horseshit.
Shut the fuck up or bring a better argument before positing easily refutable and destroyed weak ass arguments.....CUNT.
"The cool thing about the right to bear arms is that epidemiologically speaking, guns are much more likely to be used in commission of a crime, or to kill the owner or someone else by accident than to be used in self-defense."
People use a gun to defend themselves, without even firing a shot. That sort of thing doesn't make the news and is thus not part of the statistics.
And how many criminals do home invasions in places with high gun ownership rates? How many street level robberies occur in places with open carry and easy CCW laws?
Epidemiologically speaking you're not taking the concept of Deterrence into consideration.
Maybe if Syrians had a Right To Bear Arms they wouldn;t have ended up having to choose between guys like Assad and guys like ISIS.
Hey fucktard the government just forced a baker to bake a cake for some queers. There goes point #2. Point number 1 is easily dismissed too. Eliminate public education and support the teaching of whatever you want. By taxing me and telling me what I can't teach my kids you are most certainly trampling on my rights. Your statistics regarding the use of guns are simply bullshit. Your fourth point is just another of your spoken fantasies without substantiation. Just admit it, you want people to live as you decide and are quite willing to use lethal force to if they resist. That means you threaten me. Prepare for the reaction to your threats.
"While we believe that America has the world’s most capable physicians, has the world’s most innovative pharmaceutical industry, and is on the cutting edge of medical technology, we also understand that the delivery system is far from perfect. However, unlike you, we see a grave danger in turning the administration of that delivery system over to the same entity that is responsible for giving us the United States Postal Service. There are private sector solutions that should certainly be explored before we kill the system, altogether, by giving it to the government to run."
I don't hear conservative pundits or conservative politicians saying what Denninger says, end the anti trust exemption for the medical industrial complex.
Gilead sells a drug for $1,000 here and licenses it to India, where competition has driven the cost down to under 5 dollars.
Both the liberals and conservatives are supporting monopoly protectinism. One supports government monopoly, one supports corporate monopoly.
It was progressive Teddy Roosevelt that broke up the oil monopoly of Rockefeller. Ford had to go to court to fight the auto manufacturing monopoly, ALMA, so that he could build a car affordable to the masses. McKinley, who Teddy replaced, supported the monopolists.
Medical savings accounts do nothing about the cost of $1,000 for a drug that sells under $5 elsewhere, or other high medical costs, due to monopoly protection of the industry.
If there are private sector solutions, the conservatives should get behind them, instead of being behind corporate monopolist protectionism, which keeps costs artificially high.
" As Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) so correctly noted, government should never be in the business of picking winners and losers in corporate America, and no person, organization, union, or corporation should have their own key to the back door of our government."
Stuff like this is why their cries of innocence should be viewed with contempt. They know exactly what they are doing, and they have done so all along. Now-SPEAKER Paul Ryan gave away the farm to private interests even worse than Boehner did, and he had to push the bounds of imagination to do it.
Fuck liberals and fuck conservatives --- you are all lined up at the trough sucking sucking sucking
How about everybody fucks off....me included.
Paul Fucking Ryan?????
Jesus H. Christ.....stop using "quotes" from the bought off Congressional band of assholes
Hmm. To focus on just on issue. Many, many countries in the world have had a government run, single payer system for years now and they are every bit as innovative, every bit as efficient, if not more so, than a for profit system.
The problem isn't the government, per se. The problem is PEOPLE'S ATTITUDES and education or lack thereof. In a society that has a background of people who genuinely understand and care about what used to be called the 'common weal' (i.e. Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Australia etc, to name a few), there are no problems of the type this author describes. In America however, where every child is taught from the age of 6 months that there are evil communists and socialists hiding under his bed that want to take all his toys and put him to work in a sweat shop, then you naturally produce a population that is paranoid all their lives. You have the most armed citizenry on the face of the planet. You have the largest military. You have the largest National Guard per capita, you have the most intrustive secret service, and yet you are constantly in fear of something, either the blacks rising up and killing you in your beds, or the Mexicans, or the Russians or the Chinese. It isn't hyperbole to say that right now, today, the CIA is more brutal, more intrusive, more disruptive and more controlling than any of the former secret services in the eastern block countries in Europe. ANd yet not one citizen says shit about it. You are terrified of your own creations. The real irony of American is that it started out populated by people fleeing persecution, yet as you matured you took every opportunity you could to persecute everybody else.
No the problem isn't the 'progressives'. The problem is the wild west, shoot em up, take no prisoners, yankee-doodle-dandy.
the problem is lack of just laws, a just judiciary administrating in a jst manner across the board that All citizens abide.
OK, now lets get rid of Pax Americana and let these Euro Welfare states have to defend their borders without Unlce Sugar being the Big, Bad, Older brother who will kick ass if anyone tried to invade Western Europe.
Europe's welfare state has plummeted their birth rates to the point that they have to import Sharia loving Muslims to shore up their Ponzi tax base. What could go wrong???
You forgot the clincher that suited your argument. The US has by far the largest prison population per capita in the world. Denoting potentially the worst or there abouts in terms of police state. Your points are very valid. There is always a boogie man and enemy lurking in the shadows
I am a conservative and proud of it. However, when you used Paul Ryan to support you in your argument towards conservatism, I fear you weakened your position instead of strengthening it. Ryan doesn't even come close to meeting my definition of a conservative.
All this stuff, yet Red America is the poorest parts of the country.
Conservatives love to denounce liberals but California, Oregon, Washington,
NY, MD, CT, MA these are wealthy rich liberal states.
Who is aspiring to Kentucky, TN, MS, AL, KS, for affluence?
NY, MD, CT, MA, and CA are all losing population and their tax base. They also have significant debt problems.