PDA

View Full Version : Hypocrite Republican claims to be against the forced redistribution of wealth.




.Tom
03-29-2010, 07:59 PM
Just a little disclaimer: I am against the forced redistribution of wealth. I'm just showing this republican's hypocrisy of only being against forced redistribution of wealth when it comes to helping out the unemployed. I'm sure he has no problem with the "heavy hand of government reaching into your pocket" (as he puts it) to pay for the military industrial complex, the drug war, medicare, public schools, or whatever other socialist institutions Republicans happen to like.

YouTube - (R) - Unemployed Should Just "Find A Job" (Video) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25PIP9-NajI)

WARNING: It's a Young Turks video. The Young Turks are statist idiots and I do not like them. It's just the only place I can find the video.

I just get really annoyed when I hear Republicans like him being such hypocrites by claiming to be against the forced redistribution of wealth and for private charity etc, yet having no problem being for other HUGE statist programs. Not to mention his salary is paid for by force. :rolleyes:

micahnelson
03-29-2010, 08:11 PM
My pet peeve right now is that the conservatives who supported Romney's Play-Or-Pay, Buy-or-Die health care plan are somehow opposed to Obama's remix.

.Tom
03-29-2010, 08:52 PM
My pet peeve right now is that the conservatives who supported Romney's Play-Or-Pay, Buy-or-Die health care plan are somehow opposed to Obama's remix.

Yes, that angers me to no end as well. Romneycare is the same thing as Obamacare but somehow when Romney does it it's okay but when Obama does it it's socialist?

Mitt Romney and the conservatives who support him and his crap are the biggest hypocritical partisan hacks on the planet.

silus
03-29-2010, 08:59 PM
Yes, that angers me to no end as well. Romneycare is the same thing as Obamacare but somehow when Romney does it it's okay but when Obama does it it's socialist?
State vs. Federal
Constitutional vs. Unconstitutional

Just taking a stab here...

.Tom
03-29-2010, 09:10 PM
State vs. Federal
Constitutional vs. Unconstitutional

Just taking a stab here...

Ummm, so it's okay for one mafia to do it but not another?

"State vs federal" is a weak argument. The state is the state no matter how big. Forcing people in one area to do something is just as wrong as forcing them to do it in another.

silus
03-29-2010, 09:14 PM
Ummm, so it's okay for one mafia to do it but not another?

"State vs federal" is a weak argument. The state is the state no matter how big. Forcing people in one area to do something is just as wrong as forcing them to do it in another.
If one is legally permissible by our Constitution, and one is not, then I don't see how it can be a weak argument. :shrug

JeNNiF00F00
03-29-2010, 09:17 PM
If one is legally permissible by our Constitution, and one is not, then I don't see how it can be a weak argument. :shrug

Statism is still Statism.

.Tom
03-29-2010, 09:22 PM
If one is legally permissible by our Constitution, and one is not, then I don't see how it can be a weak argument. :shrug

If the Constitution said it was legally permissible to burn witches, would that be okay with you?

silus
03-29-2010, 10:02 PM
If the Constitution said it was legally permissible to burn witches, would that be okay with you?
You can't see anything in front of your face can you? Its like you just shut off all senses and are stuck in this hypersensitive mindset.

The original point was why Republicans do not see differently universal healthcare applied by a single state vs. mandated by the federal government. I responded that it could be partially due to the differences in legality.

Your point then was that using the constitution is a weak argument, which makes no sense considering this is NOT A PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE. And now you are now questioning whether I would want to burn witches? You sound kind of insane, honestly.

There are a number of reasons why Republicans don't view Obama's federally mandated healthcare the same as Romney's. And you pretty much cited none of them, which begs the question, why the fuck are you talking?

.Tom
03-29-2010, 10:19 PM
You can't see anything in front of your face can you? Its like you just shut off all senses and are stuck in this hypersensitive mindset.

The original point was why Republicans do not see differently universal healthcare applied by a single state vs. mandated by the federal government. I responded that it could be partially due to the differences in legality.

Your point then was that using the constitution is a weak argument, which makes no sense considering this is NOT A PHILOSOPHICAL DEBATE. And now you are now questioning whether I would want to burn witches? You sound kind of insane, honestly.

There are a number of reasons why Republicans don't view Obama's federally mandated healthcare the same as Romney's. And you pretty much cited none of them, which begs the question, why the fuck are you talking?

Oh come on, the reason Republicans view Obama's as different than Romney's is because they like Romney and don't like Obama. They aren't really opposed to forcing people to buy products.

erowe1
03-30-2010, 09:58 AM
State vs. Federal
Constitutional vs. Unconstitutional

Just taking a stab here...

You're giving Romney too much credit. The actual reasoning is more like Republican vs. Democrat. Nothing else matters to Romney.

j6p
03-30-2010, 11:48 AM
It's ok for Mittens socialist, but not ok for Obama socialist. WHatever same bird, diffrent party.

GunnyFreedom
03-30-2010, 11:54 AM
If one is legally permissible by our Constitution, and one is not, then I don't see how it can be a weak argument. :shrug

Just because it's at the State level doesn't make it Constitutional. It may be "okay" according to the FEDERAL Constitution simply because that doesn't cover the topic one way or the other, but nobody has yet been able to show me where such a plan was authorized by the Massachusetts STATE Constitution. Thus, it remains unconstitutional even at the State level.

silus
03-30-2010, 07:40 PM
Just because it's at the State level doesn't make it Constitutional. It may be "okay" according to the FEDERAL Constitution simply because that doesn't cover the topic one way or the other, but nobody has yet been able to show me where such a plan was authorized by the Massachusetts STATE Constitution. Thus, it remains unconstitutional even at the State level.
The fact remains that the more local something occurs, the more influence the people will have, and the more capable they will be in changing it.

GunnyFreedom
03-30-2010, 07:51 PM
The fact remains that the more local something occurs, the more influence the people will have, and the more capable they will be in changing it.

True. But it's still unconstitutional. Nobody has yet been able to show me where in the Massachusetts State Constitution that a program like Romneycare is authorized. If you are faithful in little, you will be faithful in much. If you are unfaithful in little you will be unfaithful in much. If they are willing to abrogate the Mass Constitution with Romneycare, then they will be willing to abrogate the US Constitution with....whatever. To me, a willful violation of the Constitution is egregious, and in this case one is not better (or less evil) than the other. Pissing on the Constitution is pissing on the Constitution, to me, the two are morally equivalent.

micahnelson
03-30-2010, 09:21 PM
Under this reasoning, and I would probably support it, some states should have single payer healthcare right now. The citizenry of many states would be in support of this. Brandeis had this in mind when he discussed the "laboratories of democracy" as being a benefit to the federal government- having a place to cull good ideas from bad.

For example, under the Romneycare plan, insurance premiums have risen. So, we know that compulsory purchase of health insurance raises rates. If the Republicans would have been willing to admit the similarities between the plans, this would have been a legit talking point.

But no, we get Death Panels.

angelatc
03-30-2010, 09:57 PM
If one is legally permissible by our Constitution, and one is not, then I don't see how it can be a weak argument. :shrug

When you become an anarchist it will suddenly make sense. Until then, you are correct from the Ron Paul POV. Those programs are legally acceptable when run by the states. The federal government has no such legitimate power.

angelatc
03-30-2010, 10:04 PM
True. But it's still unconstitutional. Nobody has yet been able to show me where in the Massachusetts State Constitution that a program like Romneycare is authorized. If you are faithful in little, you will be faithful in much. If you are unfaithful in little you will be unfaithful in much. If they are willing to abrogate the Mass Constitution with Romneycare, then they will be willing to abrogate the US Constitution with....whatever. To me, a willful violation of the Constitution is egregious, and in this case one is not better (or less evil) than the other. Pissing on the Constitution is pissing on the Constitution, to me, the two are morally equivalent.

The Mass consitution is too damned long, but I do believe it gives the people the power to vote themselves peace, prosperity and happiness. Like that's going to work, but none the less, they do have the right. SO if public health care makes them happy.....

GunnyFreedom
03-30-2010, 10:05 PM
The Mass consitution is too damned long, but I do believe it gives the people the power to vote themselves peace, prosperity and happiness. Like that's going to work, but none the less, they do have the right. SO if public health care makes them happy.....

that doesn't sound to me like it would have any legal meaning whatsoever...

Philhelm
03-30-2010, 11:20 PM
Actually, witches should be burned, and in a free society citizens would be allowed to defend themselves from the Evil Eye and crop failure.