Guiliani: Democrats party of losers

Discussion in 'Politics' started by madanthonywayne, Jul 31, 2007.

  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Guiliani's sounding better and better. In a recent speech he said:
    Tough on terror, favors lower taxes, favors private health care (as opposed to socialized medicine like the Democrats), a record of competent leadership, and he can speak coherently!
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Except investments in start-ups are tax deductable. He's a lier.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Genji Registered Senior Member

    G is a dead duck. Watch him bow out by September.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    I don't know if he's smart enough to bow out. But I'm not particularly worried about Giuliani. It's not like he actually has any credibility left. The myth of the 9/11 Mayor Hero is over.
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    His 15,000 dollar tax break is just a tax cut for rich people - they're already buying health insurance.

    And since when is the ability to buy high deductible insurance a great benefit, or something that we don't already have?

    The idea that medical care is a manufactured good - that its price goes down with economies of scale and surplus in production and market choice - is ludicrous. Handing rich people another 15,000 to spend on medical would drive the prices up, not down - more money chasing the same services already being delivered. The medical care that benefits most from economy of scale in delivery is public health measures like vaccinations and screenings - socialist stuff.

    Private health care is essentially no medical care at all for most people, very expensive care for the rest, and a further erosion of the public health and wellbeing. Greater personal control over medical care puts even more expensive and critical decisions in the hands of people both uninformed and probably incapacitated to some extent.

    Feh. He's just parroting righty boilerplate.
  9. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    In the shallow end of your tide pool.

    Many of us are evolved.

    We know oceans fringed by tide pools.
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2007
  10. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Haven't you learned yet, G? Misanthropy is a terrible color on you, or anyone else.
  11. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    You choose an interesting metaphor to describe the natural act of intestinal evacuation to the same effect.

    Your nuance gene is really recessive.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    As a self employed father of four, I spend about $12,000/year on health insurance. I'd love to have a $15,000 tax break. And as a heath care provider, I'd hate to see the government take over health care.

    I already accept Medicare (the government run health insurance for the elderly) and it's a real pain in the ass. I'm considering not taking it anymore. I'd hate for all my patients to be in that kind of plan.
  13. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Perhaps they should work on fixing what is wrong with medicare.
    I could get behind a candidate that has a real plan for that.
  14. Dark520 Rebuilt Registered Senior Member

    What's new?
  15. Ganymede Valued Senior Member

    Ask any true Republican. Guliani is a Democrat in Republicans clothing.

    1)He's for Gun Control

    2) Federal funded abortions

    3) Gay rights

    Sounds like a RINO to me.
  16. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    None of that has ANYTHING to do with being Republican!
  17. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    I think private healthcare in that form, is stupid. If it's private then employers should pay. If it's public then the state should pay, but healthcare is a national security issue. If we don't protect the health of our citizens, a plague could destroy the entire country.

    Don't you people know European history?
  18. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Gun control by it's very nature is very anti libertarian.

    The phrase "Gun control" has control in it. It's not about protecting anyone, or safety, it's about politicians and the government trying to control who gets the guns. And it never works, because the people who always seem to get the guns, seem to be the least qualified to get it.

    Gun control, is like crowd control, though control, career control, wealth control, or just in general, life control. So libertarians basically don't want the government to control their lives. Democrats want the government to control their lives.

    A lot of Bush Republicans are not libertarian Republicans or even conservative. They want Bush and the corporations to control their lives. They want Bush as CEO of a global corporation, and they want to be an employee of America corp.

    I personally, do not favor either of these outlooks. But it seems, no matter which party you vote for, both parties desire centralized power, in the hands of a few individuals, or maybe even just one individual.

    I favor a more decentralized shared power, very much like how the constitution describes, but if that mechanism is not acceptable, then I'm a populist who will support either party when it's in my best interest to do so.

    I'm not for gun control, I am for universal healthcare. I'm not for higher taxes but I am for universal college education. I'm not for big centralized government, but I am for small decentralized government and non government organizations.

    The point is, I fear the government as much as I fear the corporation, because I know government can be and is being run exactly like a corporation at this time. So what difference does it make? The corporations control the government and run the government as a sort of mega corporation.

    So basically, it's the same structure either way, and not much changes. I do admit, there are certain things Democrats do better. Democrats seem to actually be better at running the government, but Democrats are very inefficient, and don't seem to be thinking long term.

    It does not make much sense why Democrats always fund the wars, and Republicans always launch them. Clinton was great for the economy, created a surplus, so that Bush could spend it, and give it to the top 1%. Result? The top 1% stole the surplus.

    Then we look at the constitution, which is so weak now it's on life support. Democrats seem to have no ideas on how to improve government, and Republicans are busy fighting the war.

    What difference does it make? No matter who you vote for, government is going to get bigger, civil liberties will be decreased, and the government or the corporation will control our lives. Let's face it, American's just aren't libertarian enough to value freedom. Americans value security only, to the point where Americans are willing to enslave themselves to secure themselves. Kinda silly, but that what seems to be happening.

    Politics are about power and control. The Democrats want power and control over you, and the Republicans want power and control over you, and the real battle is over the ideology and methology, not the fact that one of these political entities will have power and control over you. So who do you want to control you life? Thats what you vote for.
  19. TimeTraveler Immortalist Registered Senior Member

    Why are Republicans against abortion? I don't understand the point of that. Bush Republicans don't seem to value human life anymore than Democrats do.

    And the silly arguement by Bush Republicans that abortion is wrong makes no sense, because if thats the case, isn't torture wrong too? Isn't it wrong to launch and fight wars in this way?

    Wrong is always wrong unless Bush says it's right? Is that it?
  20. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Of course you would. Anyone who can afford 12,000 a year in health insurance could probably benefit by a 15,000 tax break. Tax breaks for the well-off are W&Co's specialty - in fact, the sole accomplishment of this adminstration (aside from emlarging the role of the federal government in several areas, but that is properly accounted as means, not accomplishment).

    Unless, like a good bookkeeper, you set the borrowed monies against them - then they don't exist any more. And W&Co have no accomplishments.

    Giuliani is talking about privatising something in which there is little hope of setting up a market. It makes about as much sense as privatising highways.
  21. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Agreed. I also am strongly against gun control.
    Ok, you can't get a giant government healthcare program without giant increases in taxes and giving up a lot of freedom. Once the government controls healthcare, it controls a good portion of your life.

    As the one paying the piper, government will be in great position to call the tune.
    I don't think you're as libertarian as you think. There's a big difference between the government and corporations.

    Corporations have power, but nothing like the power of government.

    The government can jail you, it can put you to death, it can seize all your assets, it can ship you off to Guantanamo Bay.

    Corporations can do none of this. Government is the real threat to individual liberty. Corporations only inasmuch as they work hand in hand with government.
    If you're thinking of the Clinton presidency, don't forget he had a Republican Congress. The Republican Congress under Newt kicked ass. Without it. Clinton never would have balanced the budget.

    It may be that divided government is needed because when one party controls the presidency and the legislature, no one is really keeping an eye on things. Unfortunately, I really don't trust the Democrats at all.
    Despite the Democrat desire to wish it away, we are at war. When Democrats talk of pulling out troops immediately and damn the consequences, they expose their childlike naivette. Hillary had it right when she nailed Obama on foriegn policy.
    It sure seems that way sometimes.
    We are at war. At war with people who disguise themselves as civilians to kill as many of us as they can. We will have to temporarily give up some freedoms to defeate these bastards. We gave up far more during the civil war and WW2 and everything went back to normal afterwards.
    I want no one to control my life. I vote for the person I think will move things in the right direction or at least more slowly in the wrong direction.

    This time around, Guiliani is by far the best candidate. There is no freedom without security, and I trust Guiliani more than any Democrat on defense. Economic freedom is important to anyone who calls themself a libertarian. Every Democratic candidate is calling for a dramatic increase in taxes. Finally, Giuliani has the best chance of all the Republicans of winning.
  22. draqon Banned Banned

    Guiliani...isn't that the guy who didn't protect the city from 911?
    huh? what? were are republicans now?
  23. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    He didn't protect the city from highjacked airplanes smashing into buildings? What should he have done, installed anti-aircraft missiles on all the buildings?

Share This Page