Do Republicans Care More About Property Than Human Lives? (1 Viewer)

Do Republicans Care More About Property Than Human Lives?


  • Total voters
    54
I understand that the two mandates I mentioned are in place to protect financial assets. That is my whole point. It doesn't really matter why. When it translate to the typical person paying their bills, they must pay both their homeowners and and automobile insurance. That can often have an effect on the amount of money left over to pay for medical insurance (if you are not fortunate enough to have a employer help you with those costs). In the end it comes to being force in one way or another to pay for the insurance of things before ourselves. I guess the counter-argument is that you could always rent and take the bus. That is not exactly my idea of the American dream and I think it send a very distorted message to people about what is valuable and what is not.
 
I understand that the two mandates I mentioned are in place to protect financial assets. That is my whole point. It doesn't really matter why. When it translate to the typical person paying their bills, they must pay both their homeowners and and automobile insurance. That can often have an effect on the amount of money left over to pay for medical insurance (if you are not fortunate enough to have a employer help you with those costs). In the end it comes to being force in one way or another to pay for the insurance of things before ourselves. I guess the counter-argument is that you could always rent and take the bus. That is not exactly my idea of the American dream and I think it send a very distorted message to people about what is valuable and what is not.


WRONG.

They are implace to protect other peoples property, not your own property.

this is the flaw with your arguement.
 
maybe if I write it in crayon he will get it:

where is my blue crayon...

Th3y are N place to pro7ect other people's property, not Ur own
 
So, you support a privately funded militia over a government funded military correct? And, you want only privately employed firemen and policemen correct?

No I understand some government is required. I prefer it be run and funded on a more local level, City/state
 
No I understand some government is required. I prefer it be run and funded on a more local level, City/state


So, if a government funded health care system was run by the local governments the same basic way that food stamps and welfare are, you would support government funded universal health care? You would really prefer some political appointee who is the cousin of some senator from Bunkie making the decisions regarding your health care than a bureaucrat in Washington or an insurance adjuster in Connecticut? Personally, I think it's a toss up no matter which way you go.
 
Hey, maybe it you restate your argument another 30 times it would make it stronger.

Seriously speaking, I get your point. I question the over all amount of personal money that is in one form or another mandated to be spend on that type of insurance. There are no mandates for personal medical. I UNDERSTAND that "Th3y are N place to pro7ect other people's property, not Ur own"!

I believe this structure encourages people to value property over personal medical because automobiles and houses are a near necessity for average American life. By extension, so is there insurance. In the overall scheme of things this encourages people to care more about property (other peoples yes other peoples property and there is not need for you to repeat yourself again) that their own personal medical wellbeing.
 
I will stand corrected as far as the military but with the money put in that direction the gov't is even bound to get some things right. Fire and police while the friends of mine that work in those fields and for the most part all or our fireman and policeman are excellent at what they do imrovements could defineteley be made through the private sector. Liberals have done a good job in this country of demonizing corporate america with the obvious attempt to push towards socialism no more so than now. The more bites the gov't takes out of corporate america the further you get away from that AMERICAN DREAM you mentioned.
 
I will stand corrected as far as the military but with the money put in that direction the gov't is even bound to get some things right. Fire and police while the friends of mine that work in those fields and for the most part all or our fireman and policeman are excellent at what they do imrovements could defineteley be made through the private sector. Liberals have done a good job in this country of demonizing corporate america with the obvious attempt to push towards socialism no more so than now. The more bites the gov't takes out of corporate america the further you get away from that AMERICAN DREAM you mentioned.

So, the government is very good at running some things, but not others? How do you know which ones they are good at and which ones they aren't good at? So, using socialist ideal to have a military, police force and firemen is okay, but it's not okay for health care? What is the difference? Why are they so good at one, but you think they will be so bad at the other?
 
do you define the American Dream as working your way up the corporate ladder or starting your own small business and succeeding? There doesn't seem to be a good correlation between pro-corporatism and pro-small business. Even that law favors corporations over sole proprietorship. It a scary world when a corporation can become a living entity effectively isolating itself from the types of personal responsibilities a small business owner has.
 


So, if a government funded health care system was run by the local governments the same basic way that food stamps and welfare are, you would support government funded universal health care? You would really prefer some political appointee who is the cousin of some senator from Bunkie making the decisions regarding your health care than a bureaucrat in Washington or an insurance adjuster in Connecticut? Personally, I think it's a toss up no matter which way you go.

I am actually working on a reccomendation of State funded healthcare in Louisiana.

However it is based on Eric Holder agreeing not to federally prosecute marijuana charges.

Legalize marijuana and its licenced by the state (DMV actually) You must be 18 and you pay annually for a licence to consume pot.

The pot is grown locally in the state, the state purchases it only from state farmers, distirbutes it and profits from the marijuana sale and licence fees are used to pay for health care for louisiana residents.

There are more details but I do not have time....

thoughts?
 
I never said the gov't was very good at anything. That means Rep. and DEM. The men that man the front lines are supreme in what they do. The only thing the gov't does for the military is provide the funding.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom