What stupid shit do you have to believe to be a conservative today?

[BigT]

@Starving_Artist

So your answer then is yes, Congress is powerless to control insurance companies due to their vast financial resources?

Then how come it just passed a bill that not only imposes all kinds of new responsibilities and obligations upon insurance companies while at the same time cramming that same bill down the thoats of an electorate that for one reason or another disapproved of it by margin of 65% to 35%?

It looks to me like Congress doesn’t much care about repercussions from either the insurance companies OR the electorate, as its current approval rating hovering just above single digits clearly shows.

If you believe that this was Congress exercising proper oversight on the insurance companies, why in the world are you upset about it?

[Starving_Artist]

Because it does more than force insurance companies to abide by the agreements they have with their policy holders. It forces us all to buy health insurance whether we want or can afford it or not (and yes, I know there are subsidies, but it remains to be seen whether they will offset what a low-income person or family has to spend, and it puts the burden for those who can’t afford it on everyone else), and it creates the precedent of the government forcing us to spend our private money to support a program the government has decided it wants us to have.

And then, given that Obama is on record as favoring single-payer, as are a fair number of congress members and liberal voters, I object to it as a likely foot-in-the-door, slippery-slope bill that will eventually take us all the way to total government control over our health care.

[Wesley_Clark]

An interesting idea I’ve seen from people like Beck and Goldberg is that Fascism is a left wing movement. The nationalistic, xenophobic, paternalistic, anti-egalitarian, anti-human/civil rights, militaristic, law & order movement of fascism is actually left wing, progressive and liberal. That one still confuses me.

[Gyrate]

@Wesley_Clark

An interesting idea I’ve seen from people like Beck and Goldberg is that Fascism is a left wing movement. The nationalistic, xenophobic, paternalistic, anti-egalitarian, anti-human/civil rights, militaristic, law & order movement of fascism is actually left wing, progressive and liberal. That one still confuses me.

Given that in some circles Bush and the neo-cons are being labelled as “liberal”, it surprises me not at all.

@GIGObuster

Many conservatives were and remain in the pockets of those executives or continue to believe in stupid shit to continue opposing the reforms.

Many Democrats too, sadly (although I suppose they could still be “conservatives”, technically).

[Clothahump]

@Lobohan

I was just peeking in at the Obama / Palin Nuclear thread and it made me wonder. What are the large chunks of stupidity that conservatives are supposed to believe today?

One of the biggest chunks is that liberals can be polite and courteous.

[Gyrate]

@Clothahump

One of the biggest chunks is that liberals can be polite and courteous.

Mote, meet beam.

[GIGObuster]

@Starving_Artist

So your answer then is yes, Congress is powerless to control insurance companies due to their vast financial resources?

Then how come it just passed a bill that not only imposes all kinds of new responsibilities and obligations upon insurance companies while at the same time cramming that same bill down the thoats of an electorate that for one reason or another disapproved of it by margin of 65% to 35%?

It looks to me like Congress doesn’t much care about repercussions from either the insurance companies OR the electorate, as its current approval rating hovering just above single digits clearly shows.

:rolleyes:

http://www.thefourthbranch.com/2010/03/to-follow-the-polls-or-not-that-is-the-question/#more-917

Even in such a situation, however, a congressperson’s duty is first to what he believes to be the right thing to do for his constituents, his state, and his country, provided it is legally and ethically permissible to do it. While “more weight” may be given to constituent opinion for significant pieces of legislation, it shouldn’t comprise “all weight.” **If, in fact, polls did comprise “all weight,” liberals would point out that a far more progressive bill with a public option would have been adopted months ago (the public option has enjoyed 50% plus support for months in polls). Republicans aren’t complaining too loudly that Democrats never implemented a public option, however. **

Another significant problem for those who suggest that large reform bills should only be passed with majority public support is that transformative legislation is rarely passed without substantial opposition. In June of 1963, for example, only 49% favored passing the Civil Rights Act (42% opposed). That number increased just prior to passage, but does that mean passage was only right in 1964 (when public approval was higher) and not in 1963? Of course not. It was the right thing to do in 1963 and 1964. In 1965, just prior to passing the Voting Rights Act, a plurality of Americans (34%) said the government was “doing too much for the blacks in this country.” Only 24% said the government was not doing enough. Under the standard articulated by many Republicans, the Voting Rights Act should have failed. That would have been a mistake.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Starving_Artist

Then how come it just passed a bill that not only imposes all kinds of new responsibilities and obligations upon insurance companies while at the same time cramming that same bill down the thoats of an electorate that for one reason or another disapproved of it by margin of 65% to 35%?

It looks to me like Congress doesn’t much care about repercussions from either the insurance companies OR the electorate, as its current approval rating hovering just above single digits clearly shows.

This is completely untrue. National polls show overwhelming support for HRC, with approval of the bill at just under 78%.

[Clothahump]

@Gyrate

Mote, meet beam.

Read the title to this thread, then read through the messages in the thread. Then ask yourself why you posted that.

[Lobohan]

@Clothahump

Read the title to this thread, then read through the messages in the thread. Then ask yourself why you posted that.

Doesn’t it bother you that your core beliefs are not based on things that are true?

[Rand_Rover]

@Lobohan

Doesn’t it bother you that your core beliefs are not based on things that are true?

Doesn’t it bother you that you have no idea what the difference is between a fact and an opinion?

[Lobohan]

@Rand_Rover

Doesn’t it bother you that you have no idea what the difference is between a fact and an opinion?

It would if it were true.

[RedFury]

That Capitalism, mainly represented by huge multinationals, is the only possible solution to all the world’s ails.

ETA: Greed is great!

[Wesley_Clark]

@Rand_Rover

Doesn’t it bother you that you have no idea what the difference is between a fact and an opinion?

Did you pay your taxes yet? hahahahahahah. I’ll wait for my welfare check by the mailbox.

[Gyrate]

@Clothahump

Read the title to this thread, then read through the messages in the thread. Then ask yourself why you posted that.

Actually I owe you an apology, having conflated in my mind your posting style with that of certain other conservative posters in this board (some in this very thread) who could not in any way be considered “polite and courteous”. I’ve had a read back over your recent posts and do concede that the comparison is deeply unfair.

That said, a few points remain. Firstly, politeness and courtesy are hardly a hallmark of the right-wing brand these days, your personal style notwithstanding (I mean, have you watched FoxNews lately? Or ever ventured over to Free Republic?). True, these are the noisy minority (one hopes they’re a minority) but they’re VERY noisy.

And secondly, the broadbrush “all liberals/conservatives are doodyheads” thing is unfair and what you’ve done is just as bad as what the OP of this thread has done - take the actions of the aforementioned noisy minority and apply them to all. If you think the OP tars you with a brush better applied to others, perhaps you do need to consider the beams in the eyes of conservatives after all.

[Stoid]

@Der_Trihs

How about that evolution isn’t the scientific consensus?

That’s an all time favorite. Lately they’ve adapted it for global warming.

[Stoid]

I think the biggest problem with this topic is the idea that the righties who say this crap actually believe it.

[Rand_Rover]

@Wesley_Clark

Did you pay your taxes yet? hahahahahahah. I’ll wait for my welfare check by the mailbox.

Meh. Leave this schtick to Fear Itself, he’s better at it.

[Rand_Rover]

@Stoid

I think the biggest problem with this topic is the idea that the righties who say this crap actually believe it.

Meh again. Lefties say and believe all sorts of crap as well. Two off the top of my head are (1) taxes have absolutely no agfect on the economy or jobs and (2) statistics showing that countries with UHC have healthier populations compared to the US prove that UHC provides better health care than the US system.

[septimus]

@Rand_Rover

Meh again. Lefties say and believe all sorts of crap as well. Two off the top of my head are (1) taxes have absolutely no agfect on the economy or jobs and (2) statistics showing that countries with UHC have healthier populations compared to the US prove that UHC provides better health care than the US system.

(1) What leftie said this? On the contrary, rationalists often support particular tax polices precisely because of their effects.
(2) Statistical reasoning is difficult; causes and effects can get conflated, and so on. One just does one’s best. A useful rule of thumb is “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.”