halogamer1989 said:
I have a feeling that many of the members of the GOP that you hate are RINOs. Is this correct? What part of the censorship are you refering to btw? |
Over the past 10-15 years, the Republicans haven't stopped squawking about the media, Hollywood, broadcast networks, video games, etc. etc. etc. It's that whole "family values" bullshit rhetoric they're always spewing.
Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/
Rocketpig: Why are family values bull? What do you think should be the GOP platform?
| akuma587 said: I am a proponent of socialized health care for instance. We are the only one of the top 25 industrialized nations without a universal health care system, and we are also in the bottom half of those 25 nations in terms of the quality of health care we provide to our citizens. |
You have to remember that socialised health care is a very, very expensive process. It eats through £5 billion every two weeks in the UK, or $5 billion a week. That means, according to estimations, in ~100-150 weeks it costs the same for the UK on the NHS as what the US has spent on the Iraq war (estimate). Considering the size of the US and its population, it will cost a whole lot more in the states, as well.*
*Those costs are based on whether you mean an NHS universal healthcare. As the NHS is the only healthcare system of its kind. And is the only one to cover all areas of healthcare "from cradel to grave".
'The NHS is committed to providing quality care that meets the needs of everyone, is free at the point of need, and is based on a patient's clinical need, not their ability to pay. The NHS will not exclude people because of their health status or ability to pay.' <- A nice quote from the NHS website.
| halogamer1989 said: Rocketpig: Why are family values bull? What do you think should be the GOP platform? |
Don't spend, mind your own business, be free.
You know, like old Republicans.
Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/
SamuelRSmith said:
You have to remember that socialised health care is a very, very expensive process. It eats through £5 billion every two weeks in the UK, or $5 billion a week. That means, according to estimations, in ~100-150 weeks it costs the same for the UK on the NHS as what the US has spent on the Iraq war (estimate). Considering the size of the US and its population, it will cost a whole lot more in the states, as well.* *Those costs are based on whether you mean an NHS universal healthcare. As the NHS is the only healthcare system of its kind. And is the only one to cover all areas of healthcare "from cradel to grave". 'The NHS is committed to providing quality care that meets the needs of everyone, is free at the point of need, and is based on a patient's clinical need, not their ability to pay. The NHS will not exclude people because of their health status or ability to pay.' <- A nice quote from the NHS website. |
Britain actually spends less on health care as a percentage of their GDP than we do AND they have better care. So does France:
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/healthcare/healthcare_profiles.html
U.S.
Population: 302 million
Life expectancy at birth: 78.1
Health spending as part of GDP: 15.3%
System type: Employer-employee based (54%) and government funding (46%). Government covers all older adults and the disabled (Medicare), the poor (Medicaid), veterans, government employees and Native Americans.
Coverage: 82% of people under 65; 100% of people 65 or over.
Average annual per-person spending: Total: $6,402. Breakdown: $2,884 by government; $2,676 for private insurance, with 52% paid by employers, 48% paid by employees; $842 by consumer out-of-pocket*
Britain
Population: 61 million
Life expectancy at birth: 79
Health spending as part of GDP: 8.3%
System type: Tax-funded, government-run.
Coverage: Universal coverage. All citizens and legal residents.
Average annual per-person spending: Total: $2,723. Breakdown: $2,371 by government; $352 on supplemental private insurance, OTC drugs, direct payments to doctors.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
Ha McCain does not support a small gov or any freedoms. As far as im concerned hes a democrat
And Universal health care is a terrrible idea. More people had healthcare before the government had anything to do with it. And there is no way in hell universal healthcare would lower my health care cost. I would have to be spending for all the immigrants and uninsured, not to mention it destroys competition.
I'm independent, but I lean towards Libertarian
Halogamer, to go a bit further into my last statement, remember that your family values may not be my family values. Don't kill, don't steal, everyone can agree on those things. In a nation full of immigrants, it's downright intolerant to push your personal values onto another.
IMO, the best alternative is to let people mind their own business and live their lives. After all, isn't that why we're all here in the first place (other than Native Americans)? This country was built on personal and religious freedoms with most of the power being given to the states. In a country of immigrants, it's hard to imagine a better system. Let's not fuck up Thomas Jefferson's vision because I have yet to see one politician in my lifetime with his intelligence or foresight.
Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/
I would probably have no problems with McCain whatsoever if he wasn't passively supportive of the religious right's agenda (pro-life, hard-line stance on gay marriage, anti-evolution, anti-science, etc.).
That would also mean I would need a guarantee from McCain that he would not appoint any more strict constructionalists to the Supreme Court. A moderate judge like Sandra Day O'Connor would be fine, but not another Scalia or Thomas.
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls. The only thing that really worried me was the ether. There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke
It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...." Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson
| halogamer1989 said: I was wondering because I think it has the makings of an up and coming third party a la the successful Whigs and the Bull Moose. A Republican myself, I think that we should have not let you guys slip from us-we both like small gov't, family values, etc. I hope that the L's would come back into the GOP fray one day. |
The Libertarian Party is different than the two parties you mentioned. The Progressive Party (Bull Moose Party) was significant only because of T. Roosevelt. Had he not been the face of the party, I doubt it would have received any attention. The LP has never had a member whose prominence was near Roosevelt's.
The LP is different than the Whigs because the Whigs were not a third party. After the Federalists disbanded, the nation entered an era of one-party dominance. It was known as the "Era of Good Feelings." Originally, the Whigs were a party whose sole goal was to oppose President Jackson. The Whigs eventually disintegrated because of deep divisions over whether to allow slavery in the territories or not.
I consider myself a Republican, but I do vote for Libertarian candidates on occasion. Approximately 10-20 percent of the voting-age population is libertarian. There has been a marked increase in LP membership over the past year, but I do not foresee them becoming a real threat to win elections. They may serve as the spoiler in some, but they will not win.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
