It gets starnger and stranger.

In
news:466ba14a-4a29-4c67-9ebd-399effec27d1@e34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com

Why do you say that?

Did you think that Republicans were in favor of free markets? Or
individual freedom in general, for that matter?

--
Bert Hyman      St. Paul, MN    b...@iphouse.com

On Oct 29, 8:51 am, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:

Demonstrate otherwise.  McCain/GOP proposal for health insurance was
to open up competition across state lines.  Part two was to give a tax
credit toward purchase of health insurance.  Part three was tort
reform in that payouts could be standardized into a consistent
malpractice insurance premiums, rather than what it is now:  the
highest conceivable premium to cover the highest conceivable  payout.
Generally, the only similarity between McCain/GOP and Obama/Dems in
the 2008 election was buying into the global warming hoax.  The
"McCain/GOP is just the same as Obama/Dems." is a libertarian lie.
The real similarity is between the leftist Obama/Dems and libertarians
in that they believe it is proper for a small minority to dictate how
the majority should live their lives and conduct their business and
organize their associations.

When libertarians can explain the events in the middle of September
2008 centered around the financial collapse on September 19th as GOP
interference in free-market capitalism then they can lay into the GOP,
not for the response after the 19th (in TARP) -- which is like blaming
the fire department, after failure to put the fire out owing to
inadequate water pressure, for starting the fire.

In news:3ec886fa-6066-4233-950d-7a8717f0f2ae@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com

Are there any contemporary Republicans calling for repeal or elimination
of any laws or regulations, or the shutdown of any government agencies?

While still retaining all the rest of the top-to-bottom regulation of
the insurance industry.

While still retaining all the rest of the top-to-bottom regulation of
the insurance industry, and still retaining all the other monstrous
aspects of the US tax system.

Why not just let people keep their money and spend it as they see fit?

That sure sounds like some sort of government intrusion in the legal
system to the benefit of the insurance industry.

If there had never been a Republican in Congress who ever voted for any
laws or regulation affecting the US economy, or any Republican president
who never signed any such law or approved an agencies implementation of
such regulation, you might, just barely, have a point.

--
Bert Hyman      St. Paul, MN    b...@iphouse.com

On Oct 29, 5:21 pm, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:

Any why don't you ask: are there any Republicans calling for a whore
and drug pusher on every corner?

The regulation has been a matter at the state level. Opening up the
industry across state lines through the Constitutional interstate
commerce clause would necessarily change that -- maybe for the better
(GOP in charge) or for the worse (Dems in charge).

You are merely trying to obfuscate your lie that the there was/is no
difference between the GOP and the Dems on free-enterprise solutions
to most problems -- especially in healthcare.  Any solution that
allows a taxpayer to keep more of his money through credits and health
savings accounts is a REFORM of the tax code versus the Dem. option of
adding more and more taxes.  What is more, the Dems are not only
wishing to pile on more taxes but making the IRS a bill collector for
mandatory health insurance premiums -- effectively making it a felony
to skip a payment if automatic debit is refused and garnishment fails,
and the federal government the keeper of confidential medical records
to be shared between the new Healthcare bureaucracies and the IRS.

Duh.  Are you listening?  Repeat after me: the GOP plan for healthcare
reform involved more money going to taxpayers and doctors and their
patients (through lower malpractice premiums).

You sound like a leftist Democrat.

Not responsive. Answer the charge.  What GOP actions after 1964 (in
the era of conservative ascendancy) led to the collapse on Sept 19th?
And even more to the point: What is "captialist" about the entire
financial sector since 1913?

In news:98c90736-5a3f-4e5f-8a94-01d90c5d698a@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com

OK, so they're different, but they're both still intending to "offer"
more government controls.

A difference without a distinction.

As for your apparent swooning over McCain, his name is on the
abomination  McCain-Feingold, and that's all you really need to know
about the guy, so far as being a proponent of freedom.

Are you one of those traditional conservatives who think that the
government can walk all over our private lives, so long as they leave
your favored sector of the economy alone?

--
Bert Hyman      St. Paul, MN    b...@iphouse.com

On Oct 30, 5:03 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

You don't have to be a leftist democrat to say that.
Come to think of it, this seems to be a common
theme recently---that a belief in one thing
necessarily indicates a belief in another.  This,
because of the connection YOU see.  I'm not
even saying you see it so wrong, but other
people can only be judged on what they
understand and know.

To the point, as you noted, this is often a state
matter.  Maybe that makes it automatically good
for you, but it sure doesn't always manifest as good.

Here in Michigan, the intimate ties between the
Republican Party and the insurance industry is
a long understood fact.  Unless your point is that
it worked out so much better for Regular Joe, then
you should admit that this isn't a whole lot different
than so-called leftist approaches.  It's a lovely
world when you can mandate your product and
keep your competitors out.

If you're into that sort of thing, of course.  I see
virtually no indication that Republicans are far
less "into that sort of thing," than Democrats.

At least these days, there's almost a drop of
humor in what the commies put out.

jk

On Oct 29, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

In September 2008, McBrain jumped on the
Wall Street bashing bandwagon, blaming
the market crash on greed and unregulated
capitalism, attempting to out-Democrat the Dems.

Give americans a choice between Dems and
Dems, they'll vote Dem every time...

--
Rich

On Oct 30, 8:04 am, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:

That certainly is an old and always irrelevant talking point against
McCain. [Take it up with the Supreme Court, why don't you?]  As though
any of that mattered in a 3-1 spending advantage of Obama over McCain
in 2008 (641 v. 228 $ billion).

The 2010 elections will be the most important national elections since
1860, and sticking with your peace-love-and-happiness Party will not
stop socialism, nor, might I add, sticking with McCain's GOP any
more.

On Oct 30, 8:19 am, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Breaking the insurance monopolies within the states by allowing
interstate commerce is point (1). Breaking the trial lawyers'
fraudulent practices (see John Edwards) is point (2).

On Nov 6, 5:28 am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

That's lovely, but exactly WHO do you expect to
accomplish this?  You finally seem willing to
acknowledge it's not Republicans, and the Dems
are hardly worth an ounce of breath.

You can say, "Then someone else will," except
whoever that is has zero chance of having any
influence.  The underlying problem, the one
millions of times larger than Obama or Pelosi or
any of the sick-fucks over at Disneyland-on-the-
Potomac, is that what we're seeing is what so
many Americans WANT.

Sure, they smell something wrong.  Yes, they're
probably gnawed by some unidentified feeling
of underlying evil.  But as long as those checks
keep coming and everyone keeps squawking
about the "Greater Good" and the wonderful
Communities we all share, the current situation
will do.

We are fucked beyond belief.  At least for once it
will be settled that philosophy moves the world.

jk

On Nov 6, 1:42 pm, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

I think it is *at least* possible under a GOP Congress in 2011 to
return to an expanding economy, low unemployment, low inflation, and
succeeding in face of our overseas enemies provided the proportion of
RINO's in the GOP is lowered, fundamentally changing the GOP away from
Lincoln-Grant-Harrison Northern crony-capitalist Party, Obama is
stripped of his czars and barred from running in 2012 due to his lack
of status as a natural born citizen, and prominent Democrats are
investigated and prosecuted for corruption.

Does this mean fundamental change?  No.  Still, is it a lot to ask
from GOP politicians? Yes.

Successful reactionary revolts, which are never very pretty, are
tricky things to bring about. However, a "legal" revolt, like the
American Revolution itself, can come about over the issue of the the
Constitutionality of Obama's Presidency owing to his lack of status as
a natural born citizen and the extent to which the country will
literally divide itself into to two camps over that issue.  The
Constitutionality of any nationalized health-care, cap and trade and
the Copenhagen Treaty will play into this as well.

On the one hand, it is encouraging that many who thought Obama and the
Dems. did not really mean what they said are now part of the Tea
Parties, but on the other hand, those are often organized by women
(what I mean by that is only to some extent sexist:  Boadicea to
Thatcher, those revolts do not end successfully), and I see no
movement in blacks and life-long liberals against Obama.

I am fairly certain that Americans broadly do not accept a jobless
economic recovery nor the impending return of inflation.  I think, at
least, there will be a return to the GOP in 2010.  Without a GOP
Congress in 2011-2013 the hope for a legal revolt disappears
completely.

On Oct 29, 3:32 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[snip]

While there are certainly some repubs who are more in support of
freedom than average, and maybe more repubs than dems, it's
by no means a defining characteristic of the party. Nor even of
most splinters of the party.

I am reminded of a certain conservative science fiction author who
is four-square in favour of punitive import duties. Yet thinks he is
a capitalist. Most ways, he is. Just that he thinks domestic
industry needs those import tarriffs, and would die without them.
So they must be there. Sigh.
Socks