Some questions for Republicans

[sr71plt]

I'd be willing to nominate almost any private conversation involving Lyndon Johnson. This is a typical example.

I work with the repository of presidential tapes at UVa's Miller Center. All of the presidents I have listened to had really foul mouths in (semi)private. And that included JFK. (We don't have Carter's tapes. I'd probably concede he was different.)

 

[jeninflorida]

In the spirit of understanding, I have a few questions for the Republicans of the AH. No, they're not rhetorical, I'm-just-asking-so-I-can-tell-you-you're-stupid type questions. I genuinely would like to understand the Republican perspective.

So, here they are:

Why have I heard the refrain "Bill Clinton is the worst president in US history" so many times? It seemed like he did a lot of good things for the US economically.

If you believe in gay rights, how do you reconcile that with your party's attitude toward homosexuals?

How much of a problem do you believe illegal immigrants are and why?

The US has some of the lowest income taxes of OECD nations; thoughts? Has this benefited you, or would you be willing to pay higher taxes in return for certain programs?

Is it any version of universal healthcare you're opposed to, or something in particular with Obama's plan?

Why is having a higher tax rate a good thing? Why not fight to make government lean and mean before we suffer the weight of government like in Europe (especially like Greece)? I just don’t understand why paying more taxes is a good thing, paying taxes isn’t noble.

From my point of view, I don’t feel that Bill Clinton did a lot for the economy. He was able to take a cut from the military and did do some good with that money on a social level. Me and my husband were in the technology boom and we strongly feel that the technology boom was formed and started by Regan and his massive military spending. From our experience while living in California a lot of the jobs that were created by Clinton program were jobs in retail and food service (not very high end).

Gay rights, giving the state of our culture ten years ago (coming out of the closet has to be the hardest decision one has to make)…really, would anyone chose to be gay? So someone is gay, so? Some days I want to add highlights to my hair.

Illegal’s .... this is a big ugly mess. Those will say that someone came into America illegal and must be sent back. On the other side, how can you argue that first generation illegal immigrants risk his or her life coming to this country to make a better life…so how can you punish someone with the dream?

Healthcare, doesn’t address tort reform and is pushing us to a government healthcare take over. government doesn’t run any enterprise effective or efficient. Yes, we do have socialism in America (school system, fire/police, and the military). My bitch about this is something close to home. Gainesville has a government enterprise that runs the local power company. They pay more for electric than FPL charges. Why? Because there isn’t any incentive for government to be efficient…and part of my rhetoric is that it takes at a minimum of three government workers to equal one private sector employee.


Do you feel that were people stand on universal healthcare also depends on where he or she is at in life and economic standings?
Disclaimer, my husband and I are very lucky with a good health care plan.

 

[amicus]

When the 13 Colonies became the United States of America, there were no 'political' parties.

The matrix or totality of political debate was the same then as it is now, a small or a large government.

The OP is not sincere and has weighted and loaded the questions with a predetermined and innate conflict intended.

Contemporary intellectuals, as evidenced on this forum, are convinced that the average person is not capable of managing their own lives and must have the enlightened direction provided by the illuminati.

MzDeviancy does not wish to hear from anyone who advocates individual freedom, basic rights and liberties as outlined in the Constitution and in the basic documents and histories of Colonial America.

The only real questions proferred here are just how much government is desired and how much interference in the lives of indidivuals is acceptable.

Amicus Veritas

 

[rgraham666]

In general, I think a nationwide program of this nature is simply beyond the scope of manageability.

Canada does all right. So do France, Germany, Sweden, and Japan. Among others.

The U.S. government also runs a military about ten times the size of any other country. It runs a nationwide court system and a national highway system. They have problems but these are not out of control.

For that matter there are many corporations, like General Electric, that are larger than many nations and they seem to be managed okay.

So why would a nation wide health system be unmanageable?

 

[jeninflorida]

Canada does all right. So do France, Germany, Sweden, and Japan. Among others.

The U.S. government also runs a military about ten times the size of any other country. It runs a nationwide court system and a national highway system. They have problems but these are not out of control.

For that matter there are many corporations, like General Electric, that are larger than many nations and they seem to be managed okay.

So why would a nation wide health system be unmanageable?

GE has to earn money, pretty sure that the largest stock holder in GE is a teacher retirement fund, and they are pretty cut throat when it comes to a public company’s performance. Don’t perform they demand the ceo goes….

GE can’t be compared to a government. GE terminates the bottom 10% of the workforce every year (or they use to)…can you imagine a government department terminate the bottom 10% of the workforce?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Seems to me that when people ask the question, "Who was the best/worst President," they're asking about how well the various men who have held the job have governed. The problem you cited had nothing to do with the quality of his governance.

You're right, it was just about his character, but that relates to how he does his job. Does it not?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

So far, no actual reps or conservatives have answered, only jimmyb trying to throw gas on the fire as usual. But mizdeviancy did make it clear that she did not want to flame anybody. Nor do I.
Zeb, you answered one question, up to a point; but your answer raised more questions;

Which cookie jar?
What was the second time he got caught?
What was the third time?
What was the fourth?

So is you name Stella Obtuse Omega or are you just being that way because I used and analogy you just didn't want to understand?

Monica comes to mind as number one, although there was one before her. Then there is him lying about the both of them, more than once. But you don't want to here that...or is that believe that.

 

[jeninflorida]

You're right, it was just about his character, but that relates to how he does his job. Does it not?

Also doesn’t how one feels about Clinton depends upon where you were before he entered office, while he was in office, and after he left.

 

[stephen55]

The OP is not sincere and has weighted and loaded the questions with a predetermined and innate conflict intended.

No one can say the same thing about you.

 

[amicus]

The OP is not sincere and has weighted and loaded the questions with a predetermined and innate conflict intended.

No one can say the same thing about you.

~~~

There is no need for the use of obfuscation on my part, everyone know precisely where I am coming from.

Snicker up your own sarcastic sleeve.

Amicus Veritas

 

[Stella_Omega]

So is you name Stella Obtuse Omega or are you just being that way because I used and analogy you just didn't want to understand?

Monica comes to mind as number one, although there was one before her. Then there is him lying about the both of them, more than once. But you don't want to here that...or is that believe that.

So the word got out about him having sex with monica, that was what I thought. And then, Newt Gingrich took out after him with a locked and loaded Ken Starr. And Clinton tried to do the gentlemanly thing and protect the lady's reputation, a lost cause, and his own. And then Starr et all got into the bullyrag. We know all of that.

But, how did him fucking a woman effect his running the country? Why does that make him a bad president?

And still-- what was the second, third, fourth?

 

[stephen55]

How it's manageable....

Moving on....

In general, I think a nationwide program of this nature is simply beyond the scope of manageability.

Running Canada's health care system is actually rather straight forward. (In fact, health care is a provincial responsibility but they all do it in the same way.)

Imagine The Really Great Health Care Insurance Company of (insert province of choice). It's funded mostly out of the province's General Revenue but may charge ridiculously low premiums which are very often paid for by employment benefit packages. It covers everybody from birth to death and pre-existing conditions, if you go from one province to another, are ignored. Your premiums never go up because of health problems. If you lose or quit your job, the worst that's going to happen is you might have to pay ridiculously low premiums. All medically necessary procedures are covered. (If you want your face lifted, it's on your own dime.) All lab tests, doctor visits, hospital costs and medical imaging is covered.

The reason it flies is because there's only one insurance company and it's owned by the policy holders. It's efficient for several reasons. One company means one bureaucracy. Patients and hospitals don't have to deal with multiple companies. Actually, patients don't have to deal with anyone. Once you have a policy and your name is in the system, you just show up. Hospitals never have to chase around and dicker over how much they're going to get paid for what they do. They always get paid exactly what they're supposed to get paid. Hospitals don't send people away out of fear of getting stung on a bill. If someone gets smacked in an accident and is brought in, without a policy, the company pays anyway. (The hospital applies for a policy on behalf of the patient and it's always granted.) Doctors send the insurance company a bill every two weeks for what they've done and it's paid.

All in all, it works, it works well and the overall cost is far lower than what the US spends on health care, per capita. Canadians are very happy with it. Those who can't stomach the idea of not going bankrupt over medical expenses are free to pay privately. I've actually heard of it happening.

Now...substitute Province for "company". Substitute any resident for "policy holder" and finally, put in Provincial Health Care Card for "policy". That's how it works.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Also doesn’t how one feels about Clinton depends upon where you were before he entered office, while he was in office, and after he left.

? Don't know ? I just remember thinking how big of a jerk he was and what a bitch his wife was.

 

[midwestyankee]

I work with the repository of presidential tapes at UVa's Miller Center. All of the presidents I have listened to had really foul mouths in (semi)private. And that included JFK. (We don't have Carter's tapes. I'd probably concede he was different.)

Point taken. I suppose that LBJ gets a lot of the attention on this score because he got real-time publicity for his crassness. He did belch with the best of them.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

So the word got out about him having sex with monica, that was what I thought. And then, Newt Gingrich took out after him with a locked and loaded Ken Starr. And Clinton tried to do the gentlemanly thing and protect the lady's reputation, a lost cause, and his own. And then Starr et all got into the bullyrag. We know all of that.

But, how did him fucking a woman effect his running the country? Why does that make him a bad president?

And still-- what was the second, third, fourth?

Still being the obtuse one. He is a liar. He is dishonest. You call it protecting his reputation. But if it was say G W Bush, you call him a no good liar. But because Clinton is a democrat he was trying to protect the "ladies" reputation. Baloney! He was trying to cover his ass. He didn't care about Monica or the others, he just cared about covering his ass. He lied again and again to cover it. Any other word for it doesn't make it smell like a rose.

 

[sr71plt]

Point taken. I suppose that LBJ gets a lot of the attention on this score because he got real-time publicity for his crassness. He did belch with the best of them.

I think LBJ was as earthy in public as in private. (He could get away with it--he was a Texan.) In that, he was probably more honest than some of the other presidents--Nixon, for instance. No one is as profane on (semi)private tape as Nixon was and yet he didn't use that language (or those images) in public.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Still being the obtuse one. He is a liar. He is dishonest. You call it protecting his reputation. But if it was say G W Bush, you call him a no good liar. But because Clinton is a democrat he was trying to protect the "ladies" reputation. Baloney! He was trying to cover his ass. He didn't care about Monica or the others, he just cared about covering his ass. He lied again and again to cover it. Any other word for it doesn't make it smell like a rose.

Yes yes, but how did that make him a bad president? What horrible harm did he do to the country?

Bush didn't lying about having sex. He lied to send our soldiers into war. He destroyed a country. On the strength of lies.

When Clinton lied, people sighed
when Bush lied, people died.

 

[MzDeviancy]

How about salvaging the ones we have now first? That would make it feel a little less like throwing money down a rat hole. The population of this country makes most of the models and comparisons available pretty much irrelevant. We have states with populations the same size as first world countries. Most of the problems should be taken care of at a state level where it's potentially manageable.

Do you think government should be less centrist then?

Thank you for your post, btw.

 

[MzDeviancy]

Healthcare, doesn’t address tort reform and is pushing us to a government healthcare take over. government doesn’t run any enterprise effective or efficient. Yes, we do have socialism in America (school system, fire/police, and the military). My bitch about this is something close to home. Gainesville has a government enterprise that runs the local power company. They pay more for electric than FPL charges. Why? Because there isn’t any incentive for government to be efficient…and part of my rhetoric is that it takes at a minimum of three government workers to equal one private sector employee.

Fair enough. I take it you're probably not a fan of protectionism?

Do you feel that were people stand on universal healthcare also depends on where he or she is at in life and economic standings?

To a degree, but it has been puzzling for me to see that even most low income conservatives in the US oppose universal healthcare. I can't help but wonder how much of that is due to the opposition's rhetoric, which termed it 'socialism' and started all kinds of comparisons to the USSR.

Thank you for your post.

 

[MzDeviancy]

MzDeviancy does not wish to hear from anyone who advocates individual freedom, basic rights and liberties as outlined in the Constitution and in the basic documents and histories of Colonial America.

Nooooo, I said I didn't want to hear from wing-nuts or people who pretend to be wing-nuts just to stir shit up in the forums.

I've read your many lengthy diatribes on starting revolutions, the greatness of Ann Coulter, how much Canada sucks and is communist, etc etc etc...It's time to let the grownups speak now, Ami.

 

[stephen55]

A fancy word contest!! I love these things..........

~~~

There is no need for the use of obfuscation on my part, everyone know (sic) precisely where I am coming from.

Amicus Veritas

Okay, I challenged you to a duel and your choice of weapon was fancy words....

ami, the use of obfuscation is your stock in trade. Mendacity is your bread and butter. Your lack of perspicacity is legend. You habitually confuse verbosity with erudition. Your indifference to definition is exceeded only by your worship of sophistry. If pedantry of rhetoric was a virtue, you would be a saint. Your epistemological solipsism grates on the vicegerent apostate and is not your zenith but your nadir. Sarcasm is your own petard and all I do is wait for your self generated hoist. I don't snicker because you engender incredulity, not jocosity.

So, before accusing another of loading the questions with a predetermined and innate conflict intended, (shouldn't that be with an intention of predetermined innate conflict?), divest yourself of that same disingenuous methodology.

PS; The OP was innocent of your spurious charge. You are the master of intentional predetermined innate conflict. Except with me. The ease with which I emasculate your emblazoned elocution is both unaffected and elementary.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

STEPHAN

Youre full of more shit than WAL-MART.

 

[stephen55]

The word is 'faeces', you feculent, hippopatamic land mass.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Intellectually unemployable dog fart!

 

[stephen55]

Surely you can do better, you pocurante and podophyllic piece of human flotsam on this sea of life.