How about some liberal tutelage?

Here are the Gallup polling results: http://www.gallup.com/poll/8056/heal...in-canada.aspx


"One-fourth of American respondents are either "very" or "somewhat" satisfied with "the availability of affordable healthcare in the nation," (6% very satisfied and 19% somewhat satisfied). This level of satisfaction is significantly lower than in Canada, where 57% are satisfied with the availability of affordable healthcare, including 16% who are very satisfied. Roughly 4 in 10 Britons are satisfied (43%), but only 7% say they are very satisfied (similar to the percentage very satisfied in the United States).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/20821/Ame...e-Systems.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150806/Ra...Excellent.aspx Originally Posted by LexusLover

I've seen polls that put the satisfied number up into the eighty percent range for canada, But more typically in the 60 or 70% range. BUt even your data shows people with socialized medicine like it better than we like our system and they PAY LESS FOR IT

Well, it IS socialized, but unique in the way the government stays out of medical decisions for the most part. Not every country is like that, and Obamacare certainly is not.

Oh, and I was insulting you, not Canada. But Merry Christmas anyway!

Well, it IS socialized, but unique in the way the government stays out of medical decisions for the most part. Not every country is like that, and Obamacare certainly is not.

Oh, and I was insulting you, not Canada. But Merry Christmas anyway! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

while the canadian govt. doesn't get involved in the health care decisions, the provincial governments do. its not that much better than Britain's health system.

Off for the holidays and the messages piled up. I would like to thank some of you for your imput. It was a difficult assignment and someone of you didn't do so good. It appears that you can't have political discussion without blaming Bush. No I can going back to explain why the actions of another president affects us today but that is different than blaming. Usually because you can cite something that a president is directly responsible for. Saying that Bush screwed up the economy is an act of blaming, saying that Jimmy Carter signed the Community reinvestment act into law is a fact.

Factual error ekim008: Bush did not have complete control of anything for six years. When the dust from the 2000 election cleared the Senate was 50/50 until Jim Jeffords switched from being a member of the GOP to an independent who voted with the democrats. This gave control of the Senate to the democrats until 2004. The election gave the GOP razor thin control until 2006 when the democrats took control back. The House was also taken over by the democratic party. So your statement about Bush have complete control for six years is just wrong. At best, the GOP had control of the House and Senate for two years and that was by one single vote in the Senate. So you can blame Bush I guess for anything he did between 2005 (when the terms began) to 2007.

I like the fact that waverunner understands separating the general budget from the Social Security budget but I don't understand why he thinks that the GOP is responsible. This co-mingling was done in 1967 by LBJ and the democratically controlled house and Senate. I also think the old (of which we will all be part someday) will go quietly since they vote so heavily.

Big Tex, why do you think that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a "Right Wing Nut"? Almost half the country who voted in 2008 disagrees with Obama and the number is higher today. Those "right wing nuts" have a lot of company out there and outnumber the "left wing commies".

Still don't have a lot of answers yet.

I do think that uncle Obama should be deported. After all our president himself said that any aliens who broke our laws should be deported. So I guess we know the official position of the federal government.

And Cute Old Guy (COG) you brought up something new about the environment. I would like to see some proof that the GOP hates the environment. Afterall Teddy Roosevelt (a republican) created more national parks and put more land under government protection than any other president and FDR (a democrat) despoiled more land under his alphabet programs trying to electrify the country and create jobs. Closing down logging roads and limiting access to our national forests (by Clinton) resulted in more fires, loss of life, and personal disaster than leaving those roads open. Being an environmentally friendly person doesn't mean that you have to be a fanatic. Speak with some members of ELF or their reps. They have expressed the opinion that they would like to clear cut...cities... and the humans be damned.

Off for the holidays and the messages piled up. I would like to thank some of you for your imput. It was a difficult assignment and someone of you didn't do so good. It appears that you can't have political discussion without blaming Bush. No I can going back to explain why the actions of another president affects us today but that is different than blaming. Usually because you can cite something that a president is directly responsible for. Saying that Bush screwed up the economy is an act of blaming, saying that Jimmy Carter signed the Community reinvestment act into law is a fact.

Factual error ekim008: Bush did not have complete control of anything for six years. When the dust from the 2000 election cleared the Senate was 50/50 until Jim Jeffords switched from being a member of the GOP to an independent who voted with the democrats. This gave control of the Senate to the democrats until 2004. The election gave the GOP razor thin control until 2006 when the democrats took control back. The House was also taken over by the democratic party. So your statement about Bush have complete control for six years is just wrong. At best, the GOP had control of the House and Senate for two years and that was by one single vote in the Senate. So you can blame Bush I guess for anything he did between 2005 (when the terms began) to 2007.

I like the fact that waverunner understands separating the general budget from the Social Security budget but I don't understand why he thinks that the GOP is responsible. This co-mingling was done in 1967 by LBJ and the democratically controlled house and Senate. I also think the old (of which we will all be part someday) will go quietly since they vote so heavily.

Big Tex, why do you think that everyone who doesn't agree with you is a "Right Wing Nut"? Almost half the country who voted in 2008 disagrees with Obama and the number is higher today. Those "right wing nuts" have a lot of company out there and outnumber the "left wing commies".

Still don't have a lot of answers yet.

I do think that uncle Obama should be deported. After all our president himself said that any aliens who broke our laws should be deported. So I guess we know the official position of the federal government.

And Cute Old Guy (COG) you brought up something new about the environment. I would like to see some proof that the GOP hates the environment. Afterall Teddy Roosevelt (a republican) created more national parks and put more land under government protection than any other president and FDR (a democrat) despoiled more land under his alphabet programs trying to electrify the country and create jobs. Closing down logging roads and limiting access to our national forests (by Clinton) resulted in more fires, loss of life, and personal disaster than leaving those roads open. Being an environmentally friendly person doesn't mean that you have to be a fanatic. Speak with some members of ELF or their reps. They have expressed the opinion that they would like to clear cut...cities... and the humans be damned. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Nothing has changed.

Your premise is still wrong......

Your premise is wrong.

Conservative are not thinkers and liberals feelers.

So I will not resort to insults , you are just ignorant in this matter and I will help educate you , if you take the time. There as been much scientific research in the matter and if you were to purchase Michael Shermer's , "The Believing Brain'' and turn to page 237 you would understand that liberal and conservatives rank 5 moral things in different order. That is not saying one is right or wrong, it is just a fact and explains our different set of beliefs. btw they are:
1) Harm/Care
2)Fairness?reciprocity
3)in-group/loyalty
4)Authority/respect
5)Purity/sanctity


If all you were trying to do was subtle insult, than disregard and go fuc yourself! Originally Posted by WTF

Saying that Bush screwed up the economy is an act of blaming, saying that Jimmy Carter signed the Community reinvestment act into law is a fact. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

JDB---Saying that Bush screwed up the economy by spending $1 trillion on a senseless war in Iraq does not fit your description of "blaming." It does however fit your description of "fact!"

By the same token, saying that Bush screwed up the economy with the Bush tax cuts does not fit your description of "blaming." It does however fit your description of "fact."

JDB---Saying that Bush screwed up the economy by spending $1 trillion on a senseless war in Iraq does not fit your description of "blaming." It does however fit your description of "fact!"

By the same token, saying that Bush screwed up the economy with the Bush tax cuts does not fit your description of "blaming." It does however fit your description of "fact." Originally Posted by bigtex

Here’s a couple of names you purposefully neglected to mention: Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, and then there is Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin, and his successor, Larry Summers, who worked for "Slick Willie"—Democrats one and all.

Rubin actively fought against regulating the derivatives market, while Summers personally endorsed and promoted the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. And “Slick Willie”? Oh yeah, he’s the one who actually signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill into law after Rubin and Summers encouraged him to do so.

Summers thoughts on the subject: "to date [1998] there has been no clear evidence of a need for additional regulation of the institutional OTC derivatives market, and we would submit that proponents of such regulation must bear the burden of demonstrating that need."

BTW, that Democrat Obama hired Summers as the director of the White House National Economic Council, until Summers came under fire for accepting perks from Citigroup, including free rides on its evil corporate jet in 2008. The Wall Street Journal, reported that Summers called Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) and asked Dodd to remove caps on executive pay at firms that have received stimulus money, including Citigroup. (BTW, how is that whole "transparency thing" working out for you?)

Matters grew worse for Obama and Summers when, on April 3, 2009, Summers came under renewed criticism for receiving millions of dollars in pay from companies which he monitored as a public servant. Summers earned $5 million from the hedge fund D. E. Shaw, and collected another $2.7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street companies that received government bailout money.

But business was sure good—at least for a while—for champion Dimcrap supporter Angelo Mozilo, Countrywide's Chief Executive Officer (yeah, the one THIS administration refused to prosecute:http://hispanic.cc/obama_fails_to_pr...an_economy.htm ).

Ol' Angelo was one those who personally benefited from sub-prime lending practices. And it was great to be an "FOA" — "Friend of Angelo": ask chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Christopher Dodd (D-CT); the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Kent Conrad (D-ND); and the former CEO of Fannie Mae: Jim Johnson (Democrat associate of McCarthy, McGovern, Carter, "Slick Willie" and the Anointed One). They all received excellent mortgage terms and some sizable campaign donations from Ol' Angelo.

Not only are you incorrigibly ignorant, you are obstinate. Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, you still say it’s Bush’s fault. Haven’t you learned that merely stating something does not make it true? In fact, in your case, it’s synonymous with “being wrong.” Have you not watched the Frontline report on Brooksley Born? Rubin, Summers and Born didn’t work for Bush; they all worked for Clinton. Dodd, Conrad, Schumer and Franks aren’t Bush supporters; they are all Democrats. Finally, two of the biggest perpetrators, James A. Johnson and Angelo Mozilo, are/were Democrat cronies.

We are all aware that some of us are right thinking conservatives and other are all feeling liberals but I really am curious about this. Can the liberals here speak directly to the point without insult, blaming Bush, or trying to change the subject about our concerns. Can you make a convincing argument about some of the following topics; Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Since waverunner responded to the three questions, I will respond to the initial question posed by JD in his opening remarks. I have often thought something very similar but I admit to having a slightly different twist.

Can the Far Right-Wing Nuts here speak directly to the point without insult or blaming Obama and/or Clinton?

Just sayin' Originally Posted by bigtex

I think that most people do the this to some degree or another. But, no, they always want to scream BUSH! I know I do lol. I didn’t like him anymore than I like Obama.

I personally wish we would move back to the middle. The left and right extremes aren’t doing us any favors. BTW, I LOVED the Big Dog; in my opinion, he was far more middle of the road than most and certainly more than Bush or Obama.

Should Obama's uncle be deported? He is an illegal and was nailed with a DWI. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I didn’t know his uncle was illegal or arrested for DWI. Yes, he should be deported just like any other illegal would. He has the right to re-enter the country illegally just like many if not most of the illegals do

On the payroll tax cut the GOP wanted to extend the cut for 12 months and the democrats only wanted 2 months. How can the democrats say that the GOP was trying to take money from the taxpayers?

The payroll tax is our Social Security payment matched by our employer up to $100,000 in income. The talk is about cutting 2% of the 6.2% that we pay which leaves us paying 4.2% for the next two months. Won't this personally bite us in the ass 20-30-40 years from now? As a nation, where do we get the extra $100 billion that this cut is costing the trust fund?

Three questions, can we get some serious answers? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I never understood the payroll tax cut in the first place. I used to have a $3,500 weekly payroll. The tax cut literally put about $15 dollars on average into the employees pockets a week. If you take that $15 and multiply it by what 50,000,000 (just a WAG on my part) working Americans that’s $75 mn dollars that won’t make it into the federal government’s coffer. It made no sense to me then and it still doesn’t today.

Apparently you did not notice the ---------->[IMG]file:///C:/Users/JANEGR%7E1/AppData/Local/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]....................! Originally Posted by bigtex

He doesn’t mean it as a joke. It’s just his little get out of jail card.

WK-TF: Look surprised. Make an O shape with your mouth; open eyes wide. Show non-aggressive posture by opening your palms up and leaning back ever so slightly – “I was just kidding. Geez, can’t you take a joke?

I didn't research your claim about our pipelines, but my bet would be that it's a mischaracterization. Tell the 70000 people a year that die from air pollution that burning fossil fuels isn't harmful. Oil is a losing proposition for us, we've known this for 40 or 50 years and haven't done nearly enough to secure our energy future. Originally Posted by drluv1

Oil’s here until we run out.

…………….If you call running huge deficits a good economy, I'd love to know where you got taught economics. It seems to me all our economics system has gotten us over the last 30 years is $14 trillion in debt and THE worst economy since the great depression. Dems love creating jobs in the environmental sector. It's called "smart growth", maybe you should read up on it. Originally Posted by drluv1

Yes and this was how Obama was going to end the recession remember. It hasn’t worked so far. Bush drove up the deficit, but Obama has outrun him by a long shot. But, I think this is what the OP was talking about. I know it sounds a bit Rodney Kingish, but wouldn’t it be a bit better if we all tried to work together instead of tearing at others' ideas. I’m much rather the recession end than be right on everything.

First Big Tex, it is blaming when you say that Bush is responsible but fail to note why. Now it is more accurate to say that Bush did start a war with Iraq that cost an estimated $800 billion to $1.2 trillion. I can also say that the costs are not going away with all of the service people who have lost their lives but mostly the greviously wounded. We will be paying for them for many years to come both in money and what they would have contributed save for their injuries. This may sound callous but this is supposed to be a discussion on facts and not emotions. FYI; I served my time so I do have the moral right to comment.
Anyway, what makes it a discussion is to acknowlege (this is for you) that Bush couldn't have done anything without the support of the democratic controlled House and Senate. The democratic party is just as culpable as the White House. 50/50 across the board. I will also remind Tex that in 1998 Bill Clinton called for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by any means. He was backed up by John Kerry, John Edwards, and Al Gore. So if you want to play the blame game don't forget to mention some of the guilty on the other side. It gives your argument (and not blame) more credibility.

Olivia Howard; Bush was a conservative only because he said he was. Except for few things social Bush was more of a moderate. A conservative won't have done the bailout and probably not the TARP. A conservative won't have referred to themselves as a compassionate conservative. Their compassion would have been self evident as they forced people off the welfare state and into productive adulthood. Not bashing you, just informing you. Same thing for Newt Gringrich. He is not a conservative except in a few areas. He too is a different type of progressive like Teddy Roosevelt. Their kind doesn't believe in a socialistic economy but they do believe that government should have a larger role. They are called statists.

Do conservative think or feel? I really don't understand who is supposed to be doing what in the original post. Can you clarify what you're talking about?

For all you care; it is physically impossible for me to go fuck myself so you can find something else clever to say.

He doesn’t mean it as a joke. It’s just his little get out of jail card.

WK-TF: Look surprised. Make an O shape with your mouth; open eyes wide. Show non-aggressive posture by opening your palms up and leaning back ever so slightly – “I was just kidding. Geez, can’t you take a joke?



. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

I do not need a get out of jail card free in the Sandbox...Go fuc yourself OliviaHoward, now quick hurry up and post accusing me of stalking your posts......right after you mention me in them. lol Your paranoia acting up again?

For all you care; it is physically impossible for me to go fuck myself so you can find something else clever to say. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I'll buy you a dildo, then you can go fuc yourself.

Your premise is still incorrect. Conservative are not thinkers and liberals feelers. Liberals rank 1 and 2 higher and therefore have a different pecking order in things they rank important. That is not right or wrong.....that just is. It is science. Research it and you would not be such a jerc and ask such stupid questions.

1) Harm/Care
2)Fairness?reciprocity
3)in-group/loyalty
4)Authority/respect
5)Purity/sanctity

First Big Tex, it is blaming when you say that Bush is responsible but fail to note why. Now it is more accurate to say that Bush did start a war with Iraq that cost an estimated $800 billion to $1.2 trillion. I can also say that the costs are not going away with all of the service people who have lost their lives but mostly the greviously wounded. We will be paying for them for many years to come both in money and what they would have contributed save for their injuries. This may sound callous but this is supposed to be a discussion on facts and not emotions. FYI; I served my time so I do have the moral right to comment.
Anyway, what makes it a discussion is to acknowlege (this is for you) that Bush couldn't have done anything without the support of the democratic controlled House and Senate. The democratic party is just as culpable as the White House. 50/50 across the board. I will also remind Tex that in 1998 Bill Clinton called for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by any means. He was backed up by John Kerry, John Edwards, and Al Gore. So if you want to play the blame game don't forget to mention some of the guilty on the other side. It gives your argument (and not blame) more credibility.

Olivia Howard; Bush was a conservative only because he said he was. Except for few things social Bush was more of a moderate. A conservative won't have done the bailout and probably not the TARP. A conservative won't have referred to themselves as a compassionate conservative. Their compassion would have been self evident as they forced people off the welfare state and into productive adulthood. Not bashing you, just informing you. Same thing for Newt Gringrich. He is not a conservative except in a few areas. He too is a different type of progressive like Teddy Roosevelt. Their kind doesn't believe in a socialistic economy but they do believe that government should have a larger role. They are called statists.

Do conservative think or feel? I really don't understand who is supposed to be doing what in the original post. Can you clarify what you're talking about?

For all you care; it is physically impossible for me to go fuck myself so you can find something else clever to say. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Most people consider the Republican party to be conservative; It isn't. It's only conservative relative to the Democrats who are full blown socialists.

The Democrats characterize Republican positions as right wing fringe views; but that's just a political strategy so that they can call themselves centrists. The Tea Party is being portrayed as right wing nuts; they are the normal people that make the country work. The Tea Party is certainly closer to the center politically than the "Occupiers".

The problem with this country is that there is no conservative party. There is a centrist party (Republicans) and a socialist party (Democrats). The end result is that the country continues to move further and further to the left. We have been moving closer and closer to full blown socialism since FDR began to ignore the constitution back in the 30's.

JD, remember liberal think tanks have funded research to prove that liberals like WTF, and the rest are genetically, ethically and morally superior to non-liberals, as well as being much more intelligent. Sorry to break the news to you, but the science is there. Liberals are the next stage of evolution in humans.

JD, remember liberal think tanks have funded research to prove that liberals like WTF, and the rest are genetically, ethically and morally superior to non-liberals, as well as being much more intelligent. Sorry to break the news to you, but the science is there. Liberals are the next stage of evolution in humans. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

That is not true at all....in fact if you were to actually buy the book I recommended it says nothing of the sort.

It just shows how each puts different importance on:
1) Harm/Care
2)Fairness?reciprocity
3)in-group/loyalty
4)Authority/respect
5)Purity/sanctity


That is neither more right or more wrong.

If you and JD would pull your respective heads out of each others asses you might learn something.

I personally do not think one human being is smarter than any other human being. A subject I may be better versed on than you does not make me smarter, it makes me smarter in that subject. You will know another subject better than I and it equals out. The man from Harvard is no smarter the the backwoods moonshiner. THey are just versed in different subjects.

Now I do admit, that politically there are some of you that think you know way more than the facts would indicate but bless your little hearts if Rush Limbaugh hasn't brain washed that head rack of ya'lls!

I'll buy you a dildo, then you can go fuc yourself.

Your premise is still incorrect. Conservative are not thinkers and liberals feelers. Liberals rank 1 and 2 higher and therefore have a different pecking order in things they rank important. That is not right or wrong.....that just is. It is science. Research it and you would not be such a jerc and ask such stupid questions.

1) Harm/Care
2)Fairness?reciprocity
3)in-group/loyalty
4)Authority/respect
5)Purity/sanctity Originally Posted by WTF

Churchill said if you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart and if you're not a conservative at forty, you have no brain.

I think there is lot of truth to this observation. Most people would agree that they aquire usefull information as they grow older; we call it wisdom. As Churchill observed, the average person tends to grow more conservative in their political views as they get older.

Women are governed more by emotion than men. If making that observation makes me a Chauvinist, then I guess I'm guilty. I'm pretty sure there's an abundance of imperical data on the question of the emotional nature of the genders. Women also tend to vote much more liberally than men.

So yes, on average conservatives do tend to be thinkers and liberals do tend to be feelers. That doesn't mean that liberals are stupid; obviously many liberals are highly intelligent and some conservatives are stupid. I think the important observation is which is dominant in the decision making process, rational thought or emotion.

I think for many liberals their emotions are dominant over their rational thought processes; this is why women are significantly more liberal than men. Women are just as smart as men but very often they make decisions based on emotion rather than reason, so they tend to vote for liberal policies that don't hold up under rational scrutiny.