Is America a mainly Conservative Country?

[Kielgasten]

By who's standards? By our own, we're quite moderate. Compared to the Middle East, we're fairly liberal (although certain countries are starting to catch up). Compared to Europe, we're conservative.

I quite liked that summation, I am Danish, and I most certainly consider America to be a conservative nation (by and large), but it is nothing compared to other countries in the world.

And while your news outlets are flying off the handle, in a very scary way. I find americans are very nice people on a personal level.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

*snip

Only one problem. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a representative democracy, or a republic. The President is chosen to lead the nation, the Judges are appointed to interpret our laws, and make sure new laws are not unconstitutional. The Congress is the voice of the people, elected to represent the will of the people.

If the Congressional members are not representing their constituency, they are failing to uphold their end of the bargain. When the majority of the population is against something, whether it be health care, increased taxation, or even casual fridays, it is the job of Congress to represent that in the lawmaking system. It is not their job to tell the people what is best for them, it is their job to represent what the people believe is best, regardless.

Also, this bill should not survive the courts, as it completely circumvents the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment within the Bill of Rights.

 

[Treblaine]

*snip

Only one problem. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a representative democracy, or a republic. The President is chosen to lead the nation, the Judges are appointed to interpret our laws, and make sure new laws are not unconstitutional. The Congress is the voice of the people, elected to represent the will of the people.

If the Congressional members are not representing their constituency, they are failing to uphold their end of the bargain. When the majority of the population is against something, whether it be health care, increased taxation, or even casual fridays, it is the job of Congress to represent that in the lawmaking system. It is not their job to tell the people what is best for them, it is their job to represent what the people believe is best, regardless.

Also, this bill should not survive the courts, as it completely circumvents the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment within the Bill of Rights.

I'll address the section I have put in bold first with a WHAT THA FUUUUUUU!!!

-4th Amendment: Protection from unreasonable Search and Seizures

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to with a welfare bill

-5th Amendment: due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain

Again ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this bill

-10th Amendment: Concerns federalism

There isn't a case here either. It is tantamount to citing the 10th Amendment for not paying income taxes.



Final point: man the fuck up and show some responsibility to your fellow countrymen who are too poor to spare themselves from pain, disability and death.

America spends Trillions of dollars every year to defend every single American from the slightest outside aggression, America needs to show the same care to those that charity alone just cannot come close to saving.

Also, don't mistake representation for merely parroting public opinion... public opinion which is determined by something as unreliable as a bloody opinion poll! Those are HUGELY open to manipulation and misrepresentation.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

*snip

Only one problem. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a representative democracy, or a republic. The President is chosen to lead the nation, the Judges are appointed to interpret our laws, and make sure new laws are not unconstitutional. The Congress is the voice of the people, elected to represent the will of the people.

If the Congressional members are not representing their constituency, they are failing to uphold their end of the bargain. When the majority of the population is against something, whether it be health care, increased taxation, or even casual fridays, it is the job of Congress to represent that in the lawmaking system. It is not their job to tell the people what is best for them, it is their job to represent what the people believe is best, regardless.

Also, this bill should not survive the courts, as it completely circumvents the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment within the Bill of Rights.

I'll address the section I have put in bold first with a WHAT THA FUUUUUUU!!!

-4th Amendment: Protection from unreasonable Search and Seizures

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to with a welfare bill

-5th Amendment: due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain

Again ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this bill

-10th Amendment: Concerns federalism

There isn't a case here either. It is tantamount to citing the 10th Amendment for not paying income taxes.



Final point: man the fuck up and show some responsibility to your fellow countrymen who are too poor to spare themselves from pain, disability and death.

America spends Trillions of dollars every year to defend every single American from the slightest outside aggression, America needs to show the same care to those that charity alone just cannot come close to saving.

Also, don't mistake representation for merely parroting public opinion... public opinion which is determined by something as unreliable as a bloody opinion poll! Those are HUGELY open to manipulation and misrepresentation.

I screwed up with the 5th, admitted. But the others are correct.

4th amendment is about unreasonable search and seizure, including information. This is a clear violation because they are giving themselves the ability at any time, for no reason, to accrue any information regarding your health, circumventing the amendment. Also, it's a forced purchase by the federal government, which they do not have the constitutional authority to do. Which Enumerated power grants this?

10th amendment is about the limitations of the Federal government being reinforced as the Enumerated powers. Again, where in the Constitution does it say that the Fed can force you to buy anything you don't want to by pain of fines, or jail time?

Public opinion doesn't mean polls. The phone lines have been melted down for weeks because of people calling into congressmen stating their disapproval. Of course polls can be 0misconstrued, they almost always are, but it's very obvious that the majority are making their voices heard, and that many congressmen are not listening.

Don't patronize me by cursing, it demeans you because you apparently can't remain civil.
Man up? I work a full time job, and pay for college without aid, while having a disability. I've already manned up. I can barely afford college as is, and now because I need to take care of everyone else, I won't be able to afford taking care of myself. It's not about health care, it's health insurance. And why should I demand that the government hold my hand from cradle to grave, while robbing me of the ability to succeed in my chosen field?

I was working towards becoming a doctor, and it has given me some experience in a few aspects that aren't talked about much. Doctors only get paid about 40% of the time when medicare or medicaid is involved, and this new health insurance is based on their structure. Both are the top 2 deniers of coverage, and doctors already triple and quadruple book patients who use them in the hope that they receive payment from one of them. Also, individuals who rely on the government rarely bring a co-pay, but are required to receive care as is. This hurts the doctors.

Estimations are saying that in the next few years, we could see a drop in working doctors as much as 40%. Now I don't believe it will be that drastic, but there will be many who change professions, or retire because they don't want to deal with not being paid for their work. I also know several students who are in limbo about their futures because they don't want to enter a field when they won't be making any money. I'm one of them who's uncertain whether to continue.

Even further, look at other nations where this is implemented. It ends up being a lever used against the people to validate even more extreme spending.

 

[Treblaine]

*snip

Only one problem. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a representative democracy, or a republic. The President is chosen to lead the nation, the Judges are appointed to interpret our laws, and make sure new laws are not unconstitutional. The Congress is the voice of the people, elected to represent the will of the people.

If the Congressional members are not representing their constituency, they are failing to uphold their end of the bargain. When the majority of the population is against something, whether it be health care, increased taxation, or even casual fridays, it is the job of Congress to represent that in the lawmaking system. It is not their job to tell the people what is best for them, it is their job to represent what the people believe is best, regardless.

Also, this bill should not survive the courts, as it completely circumvents the 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment within the Bill of Rights.

I'll address the section I have put in bold first with a WHAT THA FUUUUUUU!!!

-4th Amendment: Protection from unreasonable Search and Seizures

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to with a welfare bill

-5th Amendment: due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain

Again ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this bill

-10th Amendment: Concerns federalism

There isn't a case here either. It is tantamount to citing the 10th Amendment for not paying income taxes.



Final point: man the fuck up and show some responsibility to your fellow countrymen who are too poor to spare themselves from pain, disability and death.

America spends Trillions of dollars every year to defend every single American from the slightest outside aggression, America needs to show the same care to those that charity alone just cannot come close to saving.

Also, don't mistake representation for merely parroting public opinion... public opinion which is determined by something as unreliable as a bloody opinion poll! Those are HUGELY open to manipulation and misrepresentation.

I screwed up with the 5th, admitted. But the others are correct.

4th amendment is about unreasonable search and seizure, including information. This is a clear violation because they are giving themselves the ability at any time, for no reason, to accrue any information regarding your health, circumventing the amendment. Also, it's a forced purchase by the federal government, which they do not have the constitutional authority to do. Which Enumerated power grants this?

10th amendment is about the limitations of the Federal government being reinforced as the Enumerated powers. Again, where in the Constitution does it say that the Fed can force you to buy anything you don't want to by pain of fines, or jail time?

Public opinion doesn't mean polls. The phone lines have been melted down for weeks because of people calling into congressmen stating their disapproval. Of course polls can be 0misconstrued, they almost always are, but it's very obvious that the majority are making their voices heard, and that many congressmen are not listening.

Don't patronize me by cursing, it demeans you because you apparently can't remain civil.
Man up? I work a full time job, and pay for college without aid, while having a disability. I've already manned up. I can barely afford college as is, and now because I need to take care of everyone else, I won't be able to afford taking care of myself. It's not about health care, it's health insurance. And why should I demand that the government hold my hand from cradle to grave, while robbing me of the ability to succeed in my chosen field?

I was working towards becoming a doctor, and it has given me some experience in a few aspects that aren't talked about much. Doctors only get paid about 40% of the time when medicare or medicaid is involved, and this new health insurance is based on their structure. Both are the top 2 deniers of coverage, and doctors already triple and quadruple book patients who use them in the hope that they receive payment from one of them. Also, individuals who rely on the government rarely bring a co-pay, but are required to receive care as is. This hurts the doctors.

Estimations are saying that in the next few years, we could see a drop in working doctors as much as 40%. Now I don't believe it will be that drastic, but there will be many who change professions, or retire because they don't want to deal with not being paid for their work. I also know several students who are in limbo about their futures because they don't want to enter a field when they won't be making any money. I'm one of them who's uncertain whether to continue.

Even further, look at other nations where this is implemented. It ends up being a lever used against the people to validate even more extreme spending.

Small note, you may get worked up about "cussing" but Brits don't. Don't get so worked up about a few tactical f-bombs and don't disingenuously act like it is patronizing or demeaning to either of us.

I'm no lawyer but that 10th Amendment defence doesn't look like it will fly. I mean why is everyone SO INCREDIBLY OPPOSED to ensuring poor people don't end up unable to pay for healthcare when they get sick? I mean how would YOU personally like it to be.

If you REALLY think that if people are not rich enough to afford medical care then it is immoral for the federal government to help them (with your tax dollars), then you are not fit to be any sort of medical professional.

I mean in the UK where I live everyone can afford to pay for the NHS which is FAR more extensive, why are you making such a fuss about helping 30 million Americans get the vital health insurance they can't afford? Can there be anything more noble than helping poor sick people? Is there anything that the government is more suited to deal with than helping the poor and sick? Charity sure isn't doing enough, why is it aid agencies set up to help third world countries are most active in the USA?

"and now because I need to take care of everyone else, I won't be able to afford taking care of myself"

Yeah, those poor people dying of cancer should just go out and get a job![/sarcasm]
If caring for people is such a burden for you then you should just stop any consideration of anything close to medicine right now. Just bloody well forget it because you seriously have no clue what it takes, the sacrifice in time, effort and finance.

And DO NOT complain to a Brit about how government taxes makes it too expensive to live... have you any idea how much we get taxed? The Cost of living alone is so much greater just from general goods like food and utilities. Don't get me started on transport, UK has both the worst train service and the most expensive train tickets compared to Europe and STILL the rail unions are striking!!! It is cheaper to fly out of the country than to take a train to work. Property prices are astronomical, it is not strange for modest 4 bedroom houses to go for over £1 million which is 1.7 million Dollars!

But at the end of the day it isn't about the doctors. It is all about the patients. If you can't realise that their welfare comes first then you really need a reality check.

And don't give me that slippery slope argument. You can't argue against one bill just because you have a genuine grievance with a later bill and how can this be used as "leverage" for any more spending. If anything the right will use the "anger" over this bill to leverage roll backs and prevent any further measures from the democrats.

 

[Silva]

That's true, it is based on personal experience, but it stands as proof that such a thing is possible. The current system has a tendency to reward people who are willing to work (for the most part, there are always exceptions), so I don't particularly see a pressing need to change it.

I will agree that it is extremely hard for someone raised in poverty to reach a Upper-middle class/rich level of income, and that it requires some measure of luck. That said, I will argue that it is certainly possible to meet a perfectly acceptable standard of living, no matter what class you are born into, with some elbow grease.

Possibility and opportunity are two different things. Opportunity is what is lacked for those in the vicious cycle I speak of, and for them it is that which makes it very close to impossible. For many individuals, because of this, it certainly would be impossible.

Personally, I'd be content with making $20-25/hour for the rest of my life (which seems to be just a bit on the high side for quasi-skilled labor around here), in one of the highest real estate value areas in the country. If I wasn't though, I'd definitely be capable of saving whatever extra and teaching myself the skills needed to advance further. Especially with the advent of the internet and the Repository of All Knowledge, aka Wikipedia.

While you might be content with that, it is still unfair that those who would not be content with that do not have the choice to be who they want to be, something so pervasive in our media and the information we constantly consume. The American Dream is merely a teasing idea to them, unreachable at its highest point and therefore far less shining. The rags to riches story is news because it is rare, not for its commonality. America would be a better nation if it could truly cater to the Dream and make a real attempt to give the full list of employment opportunities to everyone, thus my support for universal responses to poverty.

I also should point out that in other nations, the Internet is not some kind of aid to the poor. It is useless to them. Did you know that only 20% of the world's population has Internet access? In simply knowing that fact, the utopian nonsense espoused by some technological determinists, that would have us think that it is some kind of revolution that will help everyone, is shown as merely propaganda.

What I'm trying to get at is that it is completely possible to reach a "non-poverty" standard of living, even if you start at the very bottom of the income scale, with a bit of work.

"Possible", but only temporarily. Only big money keeps a family in happiness without working away lifetime after lifetime and thus being in as bad a situation as the poverty itself. Work is merely a different form of entrapment, and the rich who are rich from birth (most of us in the middle class, as well as the upper) do not suffer it for as long, due to retirement, which is the crowning end of a life of hard work. Retirement itself may be available to a select few from the lower class who are both lucky and hard working, but even that gives no satisfaction to the lost desires of youth.

On a side note though, why do I want to be the better man? It's a proven fact that human beings (on average; again, there's always exceptions) do not appreciate things they are given. Make people work for it, and it becomes both much more likely to be kept, and much more appreciated.

There is enough motivation in being the better man for one's own sake. After all, we are talking about improving both one's reputation and moral compass in one fell swoop. Giving gifts merely for appreciation is a Mafia man's way of approaching charity - why not do it for the experience of mutual benefits, for goodwill, for a stronger community and society? The answer to that is too easy - merely because you are as lazy and undeserving as the very people you say are poor because of their own lack of motivation.

Such is the choice that lies before you - you either call yourself superior but in fact remain just as pathetic as those you despise - or you rise to help them and consider them your equal, thus raising every man to a better state. I think the better path is obvious. If you still don't, then I am done explaining it to you.

 

[dodo1331]

Mostly mild liberal, it only seems mostly conservative because there and loudest and never shut up...

WHAT? You're joking, right?

Who were the people screaming "We want change!" all over the media? Who are the people who never shut up about how articulate and perfect Obama is? Conservatives? Please. The conservatives are far more quiet with the exception of the Tea Party.

Screaming? They chanted it an Obama rally, yeah. I don't recall them having pictures of McCain as Hitler, Joker, or some tribal African. The conservatives talked about how great he was as speaking more than anyone, mainly in the vain of the celebrity commercial, or Palin poking fun at his teleprompter. Or people in McCain rallies yelling that Obama's a terrorist, or calling him an Arab, or yelling that he's not a citizen. Conservatives under the Obama administration have been louder than Liberals have ever been.

On CNN and MSNBC, all I ever heard in election period was about how great Obama is. I STILL hear that even after his approval ratings have fallen, if less so.

Oh really? Liberals were just as loud during the Bush era than conservatives are now. How about General Betray Us? How about the countless photos that have Bush as the devil and in numerous other things? I'm sure there is at least one picture comparing Bush to Hitler. I just found a few looking up Bush Hitler in Google Images. I also found comparisons of Bush to terrorists, Stalin, etc. Liberals were as loud, if not louder during the Bush era than they are now.

Then you weren't watching the news when FOX News said he went to a madrasa, or when Lou Dobbs repeatedly suggested he wasn't an American citizen, or when FOX News did a story on his fist bump with his wife being a "Hesbolic fist jab." Or when he scratched his cheek with his middle finger and MSNBC did a story on whether or not it was a concealed flipping off.

If you believe any of those things are on the scale of the Tea Party, which has had as many as 70,000 people attend, you are a fucking moron. I don't recall liberals having signs saying "We came unarmed this time." Obama was compared to terrorists long before Bush was, especially that famous video of him turning into Osama bin Laden.

I honestly don't watch FOX and MSNBC much. I watch CNN when I watch the news at all. I'm sure all the major news channels pointed out tiny little mistakes Bush did too just like FOX is doing with Obama right now.

Obama was compared to be the terrorists before Bush? Since when? I honestly had never heard of much talk of Obama before 2006-2007, and I had already heard Bush compared to terrorists a lot. The only ones who carry signs that say "We came unarmed." are the crazies, which are in the liberal side of things too.

I have yet to see an major news media outlet that is liberal. The big news networks are all owned and run by republican and neocons. Most people are liberal, although the right has done a good job at making that seem like something to be ashamed of. Most right wing ideologue goes against what most Americans believe, they are just loud and have a lot of money backing them. From the 2008 election though, it didn't seem to help at all. You get republicans that said during the whole health care thing that the Democrats went against what Americans wanted, failing to realize that over 70% of Americans are in vary of health care reform. I myself am for universal health care, since I see the end results of poor or no health care every day, and I think some of my coworkers deserve good health care, being in the kind of work we are. I'm sick of seeing firefighter die of cancer because we can't afford health care.

I'm not going to comment on the rest of your post, but depending on what source you use the results can be pretty different. I've read one source that says Americans are in favor of it by a 9% margin, but then I've seen another poll that said Americans are against healthcare by 5%.

Also, MSNBC and CNN are liberal. FOX is conservative.

 

[Agayek]

Such is the choice that lies before you - you either call yourself superior but in fact remain just as pathetic as those you despise - or you rise to help them and consider them your equal, thus raising every man to a better state. I think the better path is obvious. If you still don't, then I am done explaining it to you.

I don't think I'm superior, actually. I think I'm an incredibly lucky lazy sack of shit, and I have never once said otherwise. The only way I am superior to anyone is that I happen to have been born with a higher than average intellectual capacity. That's it.

There is enough motivation in being the better man for one's own sake. After all, we are talking about improving both one's reputation and moral compass in one fell swoop. Giving gifts merely for appreciation is a Mafia man's way of approaching charity - why not do it for the experience of mutual benefits, for goodwill, for a stronger community and society? The answer to that is too easy - merely because you are as lazy and undeserving as the very people you say are poor because of their own lack of motivation.

1) Why the hell do I care about my reputation? Reputation is the view the other mindless idiots spread throughout the world think of me, therefore it's completely meaningless. I do what I do because it's the right thing to do, not because it makes people think more highly of me.

2) The recipient of a gift appreciating me more also has nothing to do with it. The entire problem is that they don't appreciate the gift itself. It is a proven fact that almost every human being takes what they have for granted, if it is given to them. Hell, I'm a perfect example of that. I have never had to really work for a thing in my life, and it's upsetting. Not enough for me to do anything about it, because as I said before, I'm incredibly lazy, but I'm still not happy with it.

People do not appreciate things that are given to them. If they have to work, strain and suffer to get it, on the other hand, it becomes more precious than gold.

On a final note, I shall refer you to an old proverb: "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat for a lifetime."

Possibility and opportunity are two different things. Opportunity is what is lacked for those in the vicious cycle I speak of, and for them it is that which makes it very close to impossible. For many individuals, because of this, it certainly would be impossible.

While you might be content with that, it is still unfair that those who would not be content with that do not have the choice to be who they want to be, something so pervasive in our media and the information we constantly consume. The American Dream is merely a teasing idea to them, unreachable at its highest point and therefore far less shining. The rags to riches story is news because it is rare, not for its commonality. America would be a better nation if it could truly cater to the Dream and make a real attempt to give the full list of employment opportunities to everyone, thus my support for universal responses to poverty.

I also should point out that in other nations, the Internet is not some kind of aid to the poor. It is useless to them. Did you know that only 20% of the world's population has Internet access? In simply knowing that fact, the utopian nonsense espoused by some technological determinists, that would have us think that it is some kind of revolution that will help everyone, is shown as merely propaganda.

Opportunity is given to everyone, actually. It's not pleasant, and requires a hell of a lot of work, but with responsible spending habits and a willingness to work, you can make a living standing out front of Home Depot with the wetbacks, or with anyone who needs menial labor done. Save a small portion of that and soon enough you can teach yourself a skill of some sort, after which you can start charging more for your labor, and begin moving up the social ladder. It takes a very long time and is extremely unpleasant, but that doesn't mean it's possible.

"Possible", but only temporarily. Only big money keeps a family in happiness without working away lifetime after lifetime and thus being in as bad a situation as the poverty itself. Work is merely a different form of entrapment, and the rich who are rich from birth (most of us in the middle class, as well as the upper) do not suffer it for as long, due to retirement, which is the crowning end of a life of hard work. Retirement itself may be available to a select few from the lower class who are both lucky and hard working, but even that gives no satisfaction to the lost desires of youth.

Why is work so bad? I don't understand what your aversion to working until you die is. I'm fairly likely to be doing that, though probably more because of excessive boredom more than a need for cash (though that is certainly a possibility, as bad as I am at managing a budget).

Also, if you bust your balls hard enough, you can most certainly have at least something saved for retirement. You might have to downsize a bit, depending on the specific situation, but if you spend smart, you can likely retire after working a minimum wage job your whole life.



And on a final note, I'm not against aid for the poor, I just don't think it should take the form of handouts. Unemployment offices are good. Discounted skill training centers are good. Welfare and the like are bad.