Posted on 05/24/2004 9:46:41 AM PDT by blanknoone
Question: Is there a bromide liberals won't denounce? Or a conservative one they won't endorse?
What prompted this is the guest host on Limbaugh's program. There was a caller claiming to be a 'conservative Republican' who was OBVIOUSLY a raving leftist. Is there a simple way to 'out' them?
Is there anything we can ask them to say that a liberal will simply not say, regardless of their efforts to deceive? Something so contradictory to their beliefs that they will expose their deception rather than renounce one of their beliefs? Do liberals have a principle they won't denounce to further their agenda?
We need something universally accepted by conservatives while also universally renounced by liberals. I was thinking of something along the lines of "Ronald Reagan is the greatest of modern Presidents." But I think liberals would be willing to say that in their efforts to deceive. Another is "America is the most moral country in the world." but I can see them (while not believing it) being willing to say it. Is there anything they will not say?
Impossible when a dembot is in full lie mode they will say and do anything.
Impossible when a dembot is in full lie mode they will say and do anything.
Seeing as how abortion is a sacrament of their religion, they will never ever denounce it. Ask them what they think about abortion. They will NEVER denounce it. That would lead to immediate excommunication from the Church of the Left.
Not sure that is true. Take for instance church going socially conservative black voters. They often oppose abortion while signing up for the rest of the party plank for promises of special treatment.
How about something along the lines of "I love America with all my heart".
They are more than willing to say that lie.
"...and The Devil can quote Scripture to his purpose."
A true Socialist will say, do, or outwardly be anything, so long as it promotes and fulfills The Agenda.
The most reliable verbal maneuver that I have used to flush out a leftist is to ask them; "What do you think will solve our problems?" If they answer "government", "government program" or, in particular, "a strong centralized government", they have shown their red colors. Even a socialist as mild as a Democrat will always answer with; "The Gub'ment aughta' do sumpin' 'bout that!"
The problem with that is that there are problems that the government should address. The chattering classes often talk about 'big' vs 'small' government, but the true distinction is between proper (defense) and improper (socialism) government.
For instance, when it comes to issues of national security, I'll be the first to say, "The gubmint aughta' do sumpin' 'bout dat." That is a legitimate purpose of government.
I completely agree. Government has responsibilities, that's why it has "powers", but not "rights". National defense being the most obvious. The Defense Department has the power and the "duty" to protect the US, but it does not have the "right" to defend it. Only individuals have "rights".
That being said, I am not against the government regulating business, as long as the regulations protect the public from the unscrupulous and the incompetent. The other edge to that sword, however, is it is often an unscrupulous and incompetent bureaucracy that formulates and enforces the regulations. There are problems that the government should ignore until there is a real solution. There are also problems the government should seek real solutions for.
For instance, the national debate about health care. Many Americans want national health insurance. Socialized medicine. What these people do not understand is the dirty little secret of socialism; it creates a shortage of necessities. We may have free medical care under socialized medicine, but there will be few doctors, poor quality care and a shortage of medicines. OTH, the private market system does not satisfy the needs of Americans in a cost efficient way. Again, the problem is government being involved in private sector health care that encourages these inequities.
IMHO, the solution is that the government should not consider health care a "right" as socialists do, or a "privilege", as many conservatives do, but a public necessity and proceed to promote a healthy, private, not-for-profit, medical system in the US.
As for detecting a Lefty, the above usually outs them.
I agree with your overall assessment of powers but not rights for the government. But more specifically, those powers are enumerated. And health care ain't one of them.
With regard to health care specifically, I disagree. And because you offered an intelligent perspective, I hope to return the favor. First, I don't think the government should be involved in health care at all...it is not part of a philosophically proper function of government. Second, I disagree with the assessment that the free market is inefficient. The free market created all of these medicines, equipment, procedures and expertise. If medicine were socialized in the beginning, we would have a shortage of poor quality witch doctors. Your answer is that you want 'non-profit' not socialized government. But it is not the absence of the government that created all of these advances...it was the motivation, the justice of the capitalistic system that inspired this. You correctly identify the problem with gov't involvement, but misdiagnose the cause. A 'non-profit' health care system carries the same burden as a socialized system...it destroys incentive.
Finally, I want to point out that problems and inefficiencies in our system stem from the same problem...gov't invovlement and lack of incentive...not the free market. During the ridiculous 'wage freeze' companies sought ways to increase pay by offering company health insurance. This was done on a tax free basis (you don't pay income tax on your health insurance paid by your employer). This dissociates the payer from the decision maker. (almost all health insurance is through employers because if its not, you have to pay income tax on the money spent on it)
Anytime people get to spend other people's money, they will spend more than if it was their own. We also see this problem with medicare and medicaid...both dwarf even the most dire predictions made at their start. I predict we will see the same thing with prescription drugs. I bet within the decade actual spending is at least double the predicted amounts. The people who decide how much to spend are not the ones footing the bill. Thus we see healthcare continuing to climb as a proportion of our GDP. And we have huge layers of bureacracy trying to control costs, and even organizations like HMOs specifically designed to limit costs by deciding what procedures are really necessary. All of this bureacracy is waste, and it is a huge portion of our healthcare spending. All of that can be efficiently accomplished by letting people spend their own money...the free market. That doesn't mean that it is all small town doctors and no insurance. But it would allow people to shop around for plans that fit their needs. Expensive plans that offer everything possible, cheaper plans that limit expensive procedures and generic drugs. It would allow people to buy only catestrophic insurance, and pay their 'normal' expected medical costs without syphoning it through a bloated bureaucracy.
I did NOT post that government has rights!
What did you make of the rest of the post?
You contradict yourself a lot.
(If you are interested in an honest discussion) Please point out where you think I was self contradictory.
I thought it pretty straight forward. The market is not the source of the problems...gov't involvement is. And non-propfit is not a solution. It rhetorically 'not socialism' but it effectively is because it strips incentive. The key will be having the accountability of people spending their own money.
I can see I need to be more specific. Not-for-profit would be a better term and business model. That doesn't mean that Dr's don't prosper and medical advances are not made. Just that the stock market should not be a part of health care. Insurance companies are publicly traded, for profit, middlemen. HMO's and Blue Cross do not pay doctors what they would like and do not encourage new drugs or procedures. To the contrary, health insurance companies stifle the quality and delivery of health care. They are for profit bureaucracies. Private socialism, if you will. They are a drag on the economy and the "necessity" of health care. They train no doctors nor invent curative drugs. They are a parasite except to their employees and their stock holders.
Now here's the deal, government should not directly put these companies out of business, but these companies should die a natural death because government should encourage other ways that citizens can pay for health care. Medical savings accounts are a good start.
The topic of this thread, originally, was how to expose a liberal/Lefty. I still do not see where in my first reply that I deny the responsibility of government for national defense. That's something that you somehow inferred on your own. You infer a lot of things in your replies that do not make sense to me. You condemn government in one sentence then affirm it in another. You are really not very clear. Sorry.
I didn't think I did that...and went back and looked and still didn't see it. You infer a lot of things in your replies that do not make sense to me. You condemn government in one sentence then affirm it in another. You are really not very clear. Sorry.
To cite my earlier post, the distinction should not be 'big' vs 'small' government, but proper vs improper government. That is how I can logically support large robust defense spending (proper function of government) while denouncing socialist spending like health care.
I find it interesting that you so denounce the free market for health care. Did you buy your car or your computer from non-profits? Or service related...do you eat at non-profit restaurants? Why not? Why do you want your healthcare provided by non-profits? I have nothing against non-profits, they can be a good way of channeling voluntary donations to good causes, but that is hardly an appropriate foundation for one seventh of our economy.
Nevermind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.