Welcome to John Howard's Redneck Wonderland

[Dauphin]

Go easy on Kuci, he obviously has trouble recognising hot girls.

[Dauphin]

That said, what have you done to her eyes?

[Jethro83]

I didn't do anything to the eyes. I probably linked the full picture I just posted to a different URL from the one I downloaded to make into my avatar. All I did was cut, paste, crop and resize to 80x80.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Go easy on Kuci, he obviously has trouble recognising hot girls.

Be easy on him - he's just an innocent kid!

CT doing his best nonewithstanding.

[Alexander's Horse]

The girl I gave a lift to looked just like that.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk


Dude, you're on a budget.

Yeah, but I was famished. I've cut down to two meals a day, and I'm dropping the Atkins thing until we get more money. Looks like a lot of pasta and tuna dinners for a while.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That's fine, but I don't think you can attack modern liberalism using that as a premise or an example. I don't see modern liberalism being anything especially different from classical liberalism, same essential philosophy, different implimentation because of a different world.

Today, liberals in the US are more focused on government programs that force people to be dependent upon the government rather than being dependent upon themselves. These programs are truly antithetical to the libertarian spirit. Modern liberals are truly anti-libertarian outside the area of libertinism where they excel in their love for a so-called "liberated" lifestyle.

Your turn to defend liberalism.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Today, liberals in the US are more focused on government programs that force people to be dependent upon the government rather than being dependent upon themselves. These programs are truly antithetical to the libertarian spirit. Modern liberals are truly anti-libertarian outside the area of libertinism where they excel in their love for a so-called "liberated" lifestyle.

Interesting nonsense. How could programs that are voluntary "force" anyone to depend on them? As for being antithetical to the liberterian spirit- GOOD. the liberterian "spirit" is a petty, greedy spirit, one that achieves little if anything.

The only people "froced" to rely on government programs are those who would start or freeze on the street otherwise- but who decided its not in their self-interets to die.

[Ned]

Get real, GePap. Kerry and his merry liberal crew are pushing for nationization of health care.

Comment?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
Get real, GePap. Kerry and his merry liberal crew are pushing for nationization of health care.

Comment?

HMM..Good

The state should ensure everyone has access to health care, just as we ensure everyone has access to education. If people want to chose a private alternative, fine, but people should always have access.

I guess you oppose this notion?

[Ned]

GePap, I support assuring everyone has access to health care. But there are sharp differences between the way liberals want to do it and the way Republicans want to do it. Hillary proposed nationalization of health care, removing choice. Kerry's plan is similar.

Just for example, the Dems want to impose price controls by the artiface of government being the sole purchaser of drugs. As we have seen in the case of vaccines, this results in chronic shortages and rationing.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned
GePap, I support assuring everyone has access to health care. But there are sharp differences between the way liberals want to do it and the way Republicans want to do it. Hillary proposed nationalization of health care, removing choice. Kerry's plan is similar.

Ned, you are as trustworthy a source on infoirmation about things as Pravda was about the SU. Obviously you have little clue about the Kerry health care plan (Main point being removing the cost of catastrophic care from private providers)

Just for example, the Dems want to impose price controls by the artiface of government being the sole purchaser of drugs. As we have seen in the case of vaccines, this results in chronic shortages and rationing.

Actually, the Democrats want the government to have the same advantage WalMart gets by being the biggest buyer- ie, a mass discount-but for some reason the Republican congress was opposed to this...

[Impaler[WrG]]

Ned like Bush is now 0 for 2 in the debates

[Flip McWho]

Nothing wrong with state health care. We have it here. Its wonderful. Waiting lists may be a little on the long side but hey, if you need something done at least you don't have to fork tonnes of cash (which you mightn't have) to have it done privately. Privately is usually the better option because of the old maxim you 'get what you paid for'.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Nothing wrong with state health care. We have it here. Its wonderful. Waiting lists may be a little on the long side but hey, if you need something done at least you don't have to fork tonnes of cash (which you mightn't have) to have it done privately. Privately is usually the better option because of the old maxim you 'get what you paid for'.

Why of course, rationing and long waits is exactly what one gets when government is the sole provider. That there is a better way is lost on the socialists who crave power more than anything else.