I think you are missing my point with Liberalism and Conservatism. I was trying to say that both can be associated with a certain political party, but not always. The beliefs of Liberalism and Conservatism are descriptions of one's stance on any particular issue and not a political party. But of course as you know, they are associated for the most part with a specific party in the US.

Sure you can have varying views on seperate issues, but ultimately you will have either a liberal view or a conservative view on that issue. There is no denying that. I was saying that Roman's expressed views fall in line with what is generally considered liberal. Remember these terms were created for a reason. They have been used for a long time to describe -or one might say "label" one's beliefs on issues. I did not invent these words. They are very commonly used.

I did say "you guys are more liberal than I thought". I'm sorry if anyone took offense to that. Is liberal a bad word now? I thought liberals were proud to be liberal. I was mainly trying to reflect on your comments. I should not have grouped everyone together in agreeing with what you said. I was just shocked by the abrupt and drastic slide to the left I was witnessing with your comments. Think of it this way..what if I had started defining Fascism out of the blue? I think that would have raised eyebrows as well.

Yeah! I was talking socialism!...Socialism and communism are similar but not exactly the same thing. Socialism has communist ideals, but not of the same severity. Socialism is geared more towards government control of property and distributed evenly amongst the people, while communism is geared towards the community and run by the masses. Socialism is in the middle of the transition between capitalism and communism based on the Marxist theories.

Communism is a bad word in this country because it is the complete oppisite of what this counrty was founded on. The founding fathers wanted to establish a Republic because they realized the dangers of mob rule. Back then even democracy was a bad word.

I might not pay enough attention, but where are kids starving in this country? Or without healthcare?I have not heard any big news stories about an epidemic of poverty in this country. It seems the left likes to say things like this without much substance or evidence to back it up. I know that my state provides impoverished people with food stamps, wic, medicade, peachcare -which is a healthcare program- (I live in the RED state of GA) and tanf. I think the American people are pretty much well taken care of. Certainly more so than in any other place in the world!

I'm not exactly sure of what part of GA you live in but I have to disagree with you on this. Having lived in GA for 5 years there are absolutely people there that are struggling to survive many who don't have health care. Minimum wage there is so low that alot of people aren't getting paid what they deserve so they forgo on the healthcare to make sure they can put food on the table for their families. Peachcare is a good system and does help alot of kids but what about the parents? As for food stamps and wic they are helpful to an extent, but there are so many loopholes that I knew quite a few people that actually couldn't get the assistance that they needed. My point is is there are people in bad shape all over this country that need help.

There are 45 million people in this country without health insurance. That means they are a fractured elbow away from being in debt the rest of their lives. If they have a heart attack or need treatment for cancer, then there is a real problem. There are hungry people in this country and there are people who need health insurance. It's a fact.

I'm a liberal. There is no way around it. I think a liberal is more likely to be a Democrat and a conservative more likely to be a Republican, particularly when talking about national politics. There are some interesting distinctions though. A Massachusetts conservative (Mitt Romney for instance) would probably be considered moderate to liberal by many conservatives. Look at the Supreme Court. When John Paul Stevens was appointed to the court, he was considered moderate to conservative. Now he is part of the "liberal wing."

I will admit, I am liberal. I believe in social justice and I believe that government provides a purpose other than just collecting taxes. I do believe there is a need for public policy and government regulation in this country. I believe the government must step in when the market fails and there are instances when the market system does not work. I think our system of health insurance makes the market system inefficient because it contorts the price mechanism. Others disagree.

I see nothing wrong with being a free market conservative or a liberal. In fact, I think it is necessary for our system of government to function well. We had disagreements about the role of government before we had political parties. I think if you have people on both sides, arguing a point of view, and it's done well and intelligently a good answer can emerge. But it takes all sides making the argument. I guess I'm a pluralist at heart.

Now the social conservatives, I have a problem with :lol: Then again, I doubt they would think much of me either.

Edited August 13, 200817 yr by Jess

so i decided there is NO way i can vote for a rep and not a dem.

so i compared the major issues again.

damn. i am so gonna vote for a rep. wtf!

Canada also has it but Obama is talking about giving heathcare to the people who don't have it. The people who can pay for will still have to pay for it! It's not the same as Canada or Britain!

You're right. The systems set up in GB and Canada are fair and balanced. Everyone has access, even the people that are funding it. Obama's plan would allow for only those who ARE NOT paying to have access.

Edited August 13, 200817 yr by Casey008

I'm not exactly sure of what part of GA you live in but I have to disagree with you on this. Having lived in GA for 5 years there are absolutely people there that are struggling to survive many who don't have health care. Minimum wage there is so low that alot of people aren't getting paid what they deserve so they forgo on the healthcare to make sure they can put food on the table for their families. Peachcare is a good system and does help alot of kids but what about the parents? As for food stamps and wic they are helpful to an extent, but there are so many loopholes that I knew quite a few people that actually couldn't get the assistance that they needed. My point is is there are people in bad shape all over this country that need help.

I live in metro ATL. Minimum wage is the same amount every where. Thats a federal mandate. Lower income individuals already have access to Medicade. The only reason that you would not have access to food stamps is if you make too much money to qualify. Its actually a pretty high number in GA, $50,000 a year with 3 kids. Loopholes? For whom, the government to deny coverage?

There are 45 million people in this country without health insurance. That means they are a fractured elbow away from being in debt the rest of their lives. If they have a heart attack or need treatment for cancer, then there is a real problem. There are hungry people in this country and there are people who need health insurance. It's a fact.

I'm a liberal. There is no way around it. I think a liberal is more likely to be a Democrat and a conservative more likely to be a Republican, particularly when talking about national politics. There are some interesting distinctions though. A Massachusetts conservative (Mitt Romney for instance) would probably be considered moderate to liberal by many conservatives. Look at the Supreme Court. When John Paul Stevens was appointed to the court, he was considered moderate to conservative. Now he is part of the "liberal wing."

I will admit, I am liberal. I believe in social justice and I believe that government provides a purpose other than just collecting taxes. I do believe there is a need for public policy and government regulation in this country. I believe the government must step in when the market fails and there are instances when the market system does not work. I think our system of health insurance makes the market system inefficient because it contorts the price mechanism. Others disagree.

I see nothing wrong with being a free market conservative or a liberal. In fact, I think it is necessary for our system of government to function well. We had disagreements about the role of government before we had political parties. I think if you have people on both sides, arguing a point of view, and it's done well and intelligently a good answer can emerge. But it takes all sides making the argument. I guess I'm a pluralist at heart.

Now the social conservatives, I have a problem with :lol: Then again, I doubt they would think much of me either.

Well said. IA about social conservatives. I'm much more moderate on social issues. I am more Libertarian on those issues. I just feel that government does not need to have such a strong place in fiscal affairs nor any in social issues.

You're right. The systems set up in GB and Canada are fair and balanced. Everyone has access, even the people that are funding it. Obama's plan would allow for only those who ARE NOT paying to have access.

I would prefer a system like GB and Canada where it was totally government supported, but I do not think the United States would go for it at all. Those systems are paid for by taxpayers so all pay and all receive. Tax rates there are pretty high in those countries. Also, I think Americans are used to not having to wait. In Canada, GB and France, I believe individuals can buy supplemental insurance policies that allow them to see specialists or what not. I do not think GB or Canada type health care is going to happen in the United States because of reasons you mentioned early on -- the fear of "socialized" medicine.

I also do not think Obama's plan allows only those who ARE NOT paying to have access. A small business pool does not mean that only those who are not paying have access. One of the criticisms by Sen. Clinton was that Obama's plan did very little to change the way health care is provided in the country. It also did not require businesses to provide insurance or for individuals to have insurance. It creates insurance pools that are paid for by either individuals or businesses and expands some programs like Medicaid. It does create children's health care. It's incremental change at best.

McCain's plan really does create more of a government funded plan. He would give tax dollars to individuals so the government would actually be purchasing insurance.

Well said. IA about social conservatives. I'm much more moderate on social issues. I am more Libertarian on those issues. I just feel that government does not need to have such a strong place in fiscal affairs nor any in social issues.

I'm libertarian on a lot of issues. I'm totally libertarian on social issues. I also think the government's fiscal policies are screwed up and when they try to use the budget to correct economic problems they make it worse. Let the Fed manage the economy through the money supply. I really do believe that a lot of our problems with health care stems from insurance.

We created this insurance system that was based on the model used for homes and cars. Had there been no insurance and the ability of consumers to pay for medical services determined their costs, we would not have this mess. Right now because of insurance we encourage people did get expensive treatments when they don't need them. We also encourage medical professionals to be specialists when the need is for general practitioners. So I think had society just taken a libertarian approach and kept insurance out of the health care business, the price curve would have prevented a lot of the mess when are in now.

Edited August 13, 200817 yr by Jess

I would prefer a system like GB and Canada where it was totally government supported, but I do not think the United States would go for it at all. Those systems are paid for by taxpayers so all pay and all receive. Tax rates there are pretty high in those countries. Also, I think Americans are used to not having to wait. In Canada, GB and France, I believe individuals can buy supplemental insurance policies that allow them to see specialists or what not. I do not think GB or Canada type health care is going to happen in the United States because of reasons you mentioned early on -- the fear of "socialized" medicine.

I also do not think Obama's plan allows only those who ARE NOT paying to have access. A small business pool does not mean that only those who are not paying have access. One of the criticisms by Sen. Clinton was that Obama's plan did very little to change the way health care is provided in the country. It also did not require businesses to provide insurance or for individuals to have insurance. It creates insurance pools that are paid for by either individuals or businesses and expands some programs like Medicaid. It does create children's health care. It's incremental change at best.

McCain's plan really does create more of a government funded plan. He would give tax dollars to individuals so the government would actually be purchasing insurance.

I guess you could look at it that way. The tax rebates would roll down into purchasing insurance, but Obama's "pool" plan would require a new government agency for regulation and organization. McCain would use the already exsisting IRS to promote private coverage.

The downside of when a national health care system gets broken or is in dire financial straits is they may not treat potentially terminal illnesses as quickly or maybe the cases where it seems that they have a person wait ever so long to see a specialist are isolated).

I am way too lazy to search but I do believe I overlooked something yesterday. I referred to Obama as being more progressive than McCain and I think the word progressive was then referred to as what liberals are calling themselves. I think liberals are still calling themselves liberals. I used the word progressive in relation to vision.

The downside of when a national health care system gets broken or is in dire financial straits is they may not treat potentially terminal illnesses as quickly or maybe the cases where it seems that they have a person wait ever so long to see a specialist are isolated).

I am way too lazy to search but I do believe I overlooked something yesterday. I referred to Obama as being more progressive than McCain and I think the word progressive was then referred to as what liberals are calling themselves. I think liberals are still calling themselves liberals. I used the word progressive in relation to vision.

I think his vision on health care is progressive. The ways that have bveen tried have not worked, and I think it is time to find a new avenue for universal health care.

I don't want private health care persoannly. The health care industry has made billions while people are having to make life changing decisions that others around the world who do have free health care don't have to make (I still remember in the movie Sicko where a man was told, after a gardening accident, that he would have to choose which one of his fingers to get reattached. He got his ring finger reattached, but couldn't get the other one, because the cost, with insurance, was $1,100 and he could not afford it).

Ijust don't want McCain's plan. Plain and simple, and I trust Obama's plan more.

so i decided there is NO way i can vote for a rep and not a dem.

so i compared the major issues again.

damn. i am so gonna vote for a rep. wtf!

I am not sure what the major issues are that makes McCain seem any sounder than Obama unless it's who''s most likely to start another round of occupying foreign territory under the guise of a war painted as a threat to this nation.

I think war is absolutely necessary at times and then you have to know when to call it a day. I was all for getting Saddam Hussein and I am all for getting Osama Bin Laden but the one happened already and the other doesn't even seem to be a plan.

It's kind of easy to convince people that war is needed if you use fear and after 9/11, the art of manipulation when it comes to advocating aggression got that much easier....even in light of the revelation that the whole WMD was a farce.

When I was affiliated with a party, the first time they ran I candidate I couldn't support I dropped out of the party and went Independent.

As far as I am concerned, McCain is stuck somewhere. I cannot get beyond a man his age running a ship shod campaign and bringing up the silliest things and see him as any kind of world leader. Now he's down to calling Hawaii an elite vacation spot. Disneyland is elite for people who can't afford it and so is going to the movies for some but realistically the French Riviera would fall into that category among other places. Saying a Hawaiian born Obama is not American when McCain was born in what was then a U.S. territory (Panama) and not even an actual state is such a stupid thing and he's giving George W a run now. At least GW is funny in some of his stupidity. McCain just seems vexed.

The downside of when a national health care system gets broken or is in dire financial straits is they may not treat potentially terminal illnesses as quickly or maybe the cases where it seems that they have a person wait ever so long to see a specialist are isolated).

I am way too lazy to search but I do believe I overlooked something yesterday. I referred to Obama as being more progressive than McCain and I think the word progressive was then referred to as what liberals are calling themselves. I think liberals are still calling themselves liberals. I used the word progressive in relation to vision.

Google "Liberals are now Progressives". You will find a lot of information about it. Hillary was the first to start using the term.

Edited August 13, 200817 yr by Casey008

I am not sure what the major issues are that makes McCain seem any sounder than Obama unless it's who''s most likely to start another round of occupying foreign territory under the guise of a war painted as a threat to this nation.

I think war is absolutely necessary at times and then you have to know when to call it a day. I was all for getting Saddam Hussein and I am all for getting Osama Bin Laden but the one happened already and the other doesn't even seem to be a plan.

It's kind of easy to convince people that war is needed if you use fear and after 9/11, the art of manipulation when it comes to advocating aggression got that much easier....even in light of the revelation that the whole WMD was a farce.

When I was affiliated with a party, the first time they ran I candidate I couldn't support I dropped out of the party and went Independent.

As far as I am concerned, McCain is stuck somewhere. I cannot get beyond a man his age running a ship shod campaign and bringing up the silliest things and see him as any kind of world leader. Now he's down to calling Hawaii an elite vacation spot. Disneyland is elite for people who can't afford it and so is going to the movies for some but realistically the French Riviera would fall into that category among other places. Saying a Hawaiian born Obama is not American when McCain was born in what was then a U.S. territory (Panama) and not even an actual state is such a stupid thing and he's giving George W a run now. At least GW is funny in some of his stupidity. McCain just seems vexed.

McCain wants to restart the Cold FREAKING War.

Funny think about him wanting to go to war with Russia is that 1 of his top guys is getting paid millions by the other

peep's

He's also hooked up with that CROOKED Reed dude.

Google "Liberals are now Progressives". You will find a lot of information about it. Hillary was the first to start using the term.

I obviously don't keep up with the labels. It's such a nuisance when people redefine the meaning of a perfectly good word. When I use the word "progressive" I don't mean liberal.