This just in, republicans have no problem with socialized medicine...

Technically contradictory? Perhaps no. Hypocritical? Hell yes. The main reason I have heard that Conservatives do not want Universal health care is that they don't want their taxes to go towards paying for someone else's healthcare. However, these guys have no problem USING taxpayer money to pay for their healthcare.

My argument has been interrogative... Maybe you should look towards yourself for the problem. Do you see this symbol "?" at the end of my sentances? That indicates that they are questions and not statements. I was in no way making the statement you're accusing me of.I was trying to determine what Taz meant by the words that he chose to use. No. What I did was explain to you why Taz could not have been using your definition:

quote:

---

Are you taking the position that when the liberals are arguing for socialized medicine that they are arguing for medicine for just a subset of the people. And that what we see mentiond in the OP, high ranking officials getting cheap insurance, is a part of the socialized medicine that the liberals are arguing for. Why then, would they be using it against the other side? Shouldn't Taz be championing this example as a success of the pursuit of socialized medicine?

​

That can't be it.

---

I never denied that the other definitions exist. But you hardly even did that. Before this post, I've received just 16 words from you that you actually wrote yourself and not just copy-n-pasted:

quote:

---

Obviously the term "socialized medicine" is defined in more ways than just the CS accepted definition.

---

And I immidiately responded thay you had my position wrong. Asking questions about the intended meaning of a used word is not arguing what that word must mean. We all have access to the internet and can look up the definitions of words. You're not providing anything at all. You're a parrot, a droid, worthless. You really don't understand what debating is, do you? Its not taking pot-shots from the sidelines with copy-n-pastes whenever you see a semantic error. That's childish shenanigans. Completely false. Epic fail.You're a waste of my time. Explaining to you the basics of debating and how to read english is laboring. When I stop replying to you, don't think its because some of some sort of victory of yours.

I think the phrase "socialized medicine" gets thrown around too loosly and its adding confusion to the actual issues that are important fot the US. When people like Taz use these 'buzz phrases' in technically incorrect usage, especially in hate-bait posts like his OP, they're just adding to the bi-partisanship that cripples our politics.People who do want socialized medicine should focus on people like Taz and get them to stop fucking it up, instead of focusing on me for asking what is meant by the phrase. No doubt some of them are simply hypocritical jerks...But, I can see a place for a line between taxing people to subsidize healthcare for some people and taxing people to subsidize healthcare for everyone. Its a pretty complicated issue though, so specifics on that line placement should probably be a thread of its own. Honetsly though, I'm not even that interested in participating in it.

This is not the only way in which he has benefited from socialized medicine ... So does he like it or doesn't he? Well ... What principles would those be, then?

Should the "some people" include a guy rich enough to put five million dollars of his own money into a campaign against subsidized healthcare? Only it seems to me that if he can do that, he can probably get along without subsidized healthcare.

That isn't what he's doing. That's not what this thread is. No, I would say that the fault of that lies in the politicians who do the exact opposite they campaign on. The politicians who have their own agenda in mind as opposed to the people's. These guys, the guys in the OP, are the types who scream to their constituents about "socialism" and "Obamacare"...... yet they take TAXPAYER money to pay for THEIR healthcare. Like DA said: these people are rich enough to pay for their bills outright. Hell, they don't even NEED insurance. But, they are more than happy to get you riled up to be more than happy to pay exorbitant amounts. Why?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

In some cases it could. Should a vet loose all his benfits if he wins the lottery? I dunno. I bet he could. Perhaps the argument should be against high-level politicians receving these benefits.

What is he doing? What this thread be? Then that's where the arguments should go. I don't know the details... but as I said, being against subsidized healthcare for everyone is not he same as being against any kind of subsidized healthcare at all. Is it based soley on needs? You don't NEED internet access I don't know what you're talking about.

Quite so. Scott is no more a hypocrite than, for example, a preacher who tells his congregation not to commit adultery but does so himself. Being against adultery for everyone is not the same as being against some acts of adultery --- such as those committed by his congregation but not him. I guess that's one reason why the government doesn't pay for it.

Pointing out hyprocrisy in Republican presidential candidates. Pointing out hyprocrisy in Republican presidential candidates. And that is why it is hypocrital. "I can get cheap, taxpayer paid healthcare, but if YOU get access to it: it's socialism." You have a good way of twisting my words.... Nowhere did I say it was based on needs. I meant that he is rich enough to pay for healthcare outright. Nowhere did I say he should not get access to health insurance. I meant that he is rich enough to afford even the most expensive premium available to his constituents. Constituents who pay for his health insurance while not even being able to afford the premiums they have access to. I didn't mean you, CS. I meant you, in the general sense of the term. "You" as in: a conservative constituent.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

You seem to have mastered a sort of exculpation by vagueness. The 9/11 cross "helped" people. True --- specifically by symbolizing their religion. Scott is in favor of subsidized health care for some but not all. True --- specifically for himself (a multimillionaire) but not for sick children who actually need it. Next up: Jack the Ripper was unconstrained by the stifling tenets of conventional Victorian morality. True --- specifically he went in for killing people and eating their internal organs. Anything can sound OK with a sufficiently vague description.

That's pathetic. Do we really want people starting threads because a Republican acted hypocritically? This is no place for that.This is just a troll-thread, isn't it? Well no. What should be referred to as 'socialism' is when subsidized health care is for everyone. Referring to the fact that we have subsidized healthcare for some people as socialism only confuses the issue. And its not hypocritical to support subsidized healthcare for some people, say the Vets, but not be for subsidized healthcare for the entire population. So what are we gonna do... Base the benefits that state officials get on how much money they have?

Why not? If Taz requested it be placed in, say, the Big Bang and Cosmology forum, you might be on to something. However, this is the coffee house section. No, that would be called "a good health care system". Conservatives are the ones screaming "SOCIALISM" at every turn, not me. It IS, however, hypocritical to call it socialism if someone else gets access to the benefits YOU have.... It IS, however, hypocritical to scream "SMALLER GOVERNMENT" while using the perks of the government to get cheap healthcare.And those same people who clamor on about veteran healthcare, all the while screaming "SOCIALISM" at every turn, are hypocritical. They apparently don't realize they are already paying for what is effectively socialized medicine. They just don't have access to it. Is that what you would like to do? Not me. I want equal coverage for all. I'd rather my tax money go to people who need it and can't afford it, rather than people who don't need it but can. However, if my tax money happens, by proxy, to go to someone who can afford it, so be it. So long as everyone has access to equal care.

Exculpation!? Sound OK!?Gawsh, if I was trying any of that then why would I have these things about this guy:

quote:

---

No, its hypocritical bullshit.

---

quote:

---

sure, he's a real jerk

---

quote:

---

This makes him a real asshole.

---

I'm not defending him in any way.

I meant this site as a whole. Filling up the All Threads page with examples of Republican hypocricy would be a turn for the worse.Why no just go to a political discussion forum? Check the thread title...You should be berating Taz for feeding the fires. No doubt. But that's all beside the point. Do you think that standing idly by while people on your side confuse the issue by slinging incorrect buzz-phrases in troll-threads is helping much? How about arguing with the people who are arguing with them about doing that, you think that might be hurting your goal some?