Bush Speechwriter David Frum says Republican Party has been hijacked
-
Writerbuckeye
Your game is over, guy.
We've looked behind the curtain and seen who Oz really is.
There's nothing to see here, no matter how much you wail, stomp your feet and cry. -
CenterBHSFan
http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/26/blackwell-labeling-tea-partiers-as-racist-reflects-decades-old-liberal-strategy/
Asked what could be done to bring in more black people to the movement, he dismissed the idea of specifically working to target more of a specific ethnic group, saying “there are no racial quotas in the Tea Party movement” and that “this is a real spontaneous citizen based reaction.”
Blackwell also dismissed the notion that the Tea Party is solely a white party. “There are plenty of Latino, African-Americans and Asians who are distrustful of big government and who love individual liberty and they speak out both within the Tea Party movement and outside of it.”
.......................................................A prominent black Republican said attempts to label Tea Partiers as racists reflects a decades-long strategy by liberals to play the race card to discredit opponents.
“It is a strategy that has been used for the last 50 years by the left to create an image that they can exploit and that they can use to marginalize a movement they dislike,” said Kenneth Blackwell, former Ohio secretary of state and candidate for RNC chairman
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=162&type=issue
.......................................................Liberal racism can be seen in the way black voters are kept on the proverbial "liberal plantation" through scare tactics and attacks on "race traitors" such as Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, who have defied the party line. Liberal racism can be seen, paradoxically, most clearly in the way anyone straying from its premises is immediately branded as a "racist." This is a powerful sanction that liberal racists use like a bludgeon to control the public discussion about race.
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PR-NWord_TeaParty_032210.html
...........................................................Washington, D.C.: Black conservatives opposed to government-run health care routinely are called the "n-word" and worse -- by liberals, says Deneen Borelli, full-time Fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network.
To black lawmakers allegedly receiving the same treatment, Borelli said: "Welcome to my world! I've been called worse than the N-word by alleged enlightened liberals for the outrage of expressing my views on topics such as the threat of government overreach on things such as ObamaCare, climate change legislation, the Second Amendment and pro-growth economics."
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/002546.html
...........................................................Since most "liberals" would jump to defend the people who made the following quotes, is there any reason not to call those "liberals" what they are: racists?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-11_9_05_RNJ.html
...............................................................Who's afraid of a black Republican?
Well, if that Republican's name is Michael Steele and he's seeking to become Maryland's first black senator, the answer is: Just about everyone.
Let's start with Democratic officials such as Thomas V. ``Mike'' Miller Jr., the president of the state Senate. In 2001, Miller called Steele -- then head of the state Republican Party -- an ``Uncle Tom.'' Miller later apologized for the slur.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Liberal-Democrats-can-be-_and-frequently-are_-racist_-too-8746744-81097182.html
......................................................Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid got nailed for uttering what may be one of the most stupid -- and flagrantly racist -- comments in some time. Here's the kicker, and what makes this so good: The remarks were about the leader of his party.
That would be President Obama of course, who, according to Reid, is refreshingly bereft of "Negro dialect" when he speaks.
...
"[Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts," Halperin and Heilemann reported, "and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,' as he later put it privately."
I'm not sure whether I should condemn Reid or slap him on the back for this Brobdingnagian gaffe. By cramming his foot down his throat so deeply, Reid has proved that, liberal dogma notwithstanding, conservatives and Republicans don't have the monopoly when it comes to making racist comments.
-
CenterBHSFan
I could list a whole lot more examples of liberal racism if anybody needs more confirmation. There's over 42,000,000 more links about it.
Bunk,
Stop trying to make this issue about conservatives and tea partiers only. You're old enough, I assume, to know better!
It happens in all walks of life, from all political viewpoints. And to label the tea partiers as you have done, with the very broadest of strokes, is purposely demeaning and you know it.
Quaker Oats, as others have said, doesn't always portray his views in alignment with mine, but I think he's met his match in you. -
Footwedge
National Review is the right wing equivelant to the Daily Kos. Nothing more than a collection of talking points.jhay78 wrote: ^^^Great piece there. I'm sure it will elicit logical, sane, rational, and kind responses from our liberal posters. -
dwccrew
Wrong, the Tea Party started before Obama was even the Democratic nominee. Ron Paul started the Tea Party movement much earlier than 2008. Once Obama took office, the Tea Party was hijacked by those who are now being discussed.BCSbunk wrote:
You have me there.Writerbuckeye wrote: I posted blatant hate pics of Obama as a monkey and many more blatant racism pics. The tea party segment of the conservatives are really the Klan minus the hoods.
No broad brush at all.
This type of thing -- and much worse -- was done toward Bush for 8 years and nobody said a damn thing about it being some hate-filled movement that was going to damage the Democrat Party or threaten America.
Like it or not, it's politics as usual in this country -- and follows a trend liberals started by being allowed to openly spew their hatred toward Bush, Republicans and conservatives for 8 years.
There's NOTHING new here and there's no "movement" that is a threat to Obama or anyone else.
There is nothing new the Klan and that mentality has been around a long time.
The Tea party however is very new and coincedentally started when Obama became President. With the Kenyan remarks etc.
It could be a threat but will not be when the hatred is called out and our citizens can be protected.
Have you not been following that debate on here? -
HitsRus
^^^Ron Paul's tea party movement began in 2007 and grumblings against gross government expansion began even before that in response to GWB's deficit spending caused by a war without an end, and security policies that stretched the Constitution. It grew in strength during the Wall street bailout, and has now exploded into the mainstream as Obama pushes his agenda. While the movement was primarily Libertarians and Constitutionalists originally, Republican's and independents have flocked to it in response to the baldfaced power grab by liberal Democrats. It is one thing to temporarly run a deficit or to institute security policies for a short time...things that can easily be reversed. But none of that can compare to the blatant government takeover of large segments of the economy and private domain being thrust upon us by this administration.
Democrats continue to misread what the 2008 elections were about. Anybody remotely near the center is appalled by what is happening.... Which is why conservative republicans, including the neocons are flocking to the movement. That is not necessarily bad, as it will take broad based support to reverse the damage being perpetrated in Washington. Neocons no doubt, will exert their influence, but if the movement stays remotely true to its principles, it will be 100X better than the unbridled expansion of government. What is particularly inmspiring about this movement is that it is grass roots. It really has energized people to stand up and take back its government from those elitists who think they know what is best and are adamnant about legislating control. -
BCSbunk
Okay I will buy that. It really is not that important though unless you are an original participant and I would be pissed that the Klan took it over.dwccrew wrote:
Wrong, the Tea Party started before Obama was even the Democratic nominee. Ron Paul started the Tea Party movement much earlier than 2008. Once Obama took office, the Tea Party was hijacked by those who are now being discussed.BCSbunk wrote:
You have me there.Writerbuckeye wrote: I posted blatant hate pics of Obama as a monkey and many more blatant racism pics. The tea party segment of the conservatives are really the Klan minus the hoods.
No broad brush at all.
This type of thing -- and much worse -- was done toward Bush for 8 years and nobody said a damn thing about it being some hate-filled movement that was going to damage the Democrat Party or threaten America.
Like it or not, it's politics as usual in this country -- and follows a trend liberals started by being allowed to openly spew their hatred toward Bush, Republicans and conservatives for 8 years.
There's NOTHING new here and there's no "movement" that is a threat to Obama or anyone else.
There is nothing new the Klan and that mentality has been around a long time.
The Tea party however is very new and coincedentally started when Obama became President. With the Kenyan remarks etc.
It could be a threat but will not be when the hatred is called out and our citizens can be protected.
Have you not been following that debate on here? -
HitsRus
^^^yeah yeah,,,divide and conquer...try to turn one elemnent againstthe other...we get the strategy. Sure there are fringe elements...just like radicals at PETA and Greenpeace who engage in unlawful destruction/vandalism. The fringe is going to go somewhere.
YOUR problem is trying to keep the center in line....and they are not buying your attempt to link the tea party movement to the Klan -
Little Danny
What's with all this talk about the Klan?? The Klan has not had any power in this country in a long time. Sure the Klan still exisits, but its influence on national/local politics is not where it was in the 1920's or the 1960's. Some act as if it is a mainstream organization in our country, when in fact it is very impotent. Even Conservatives consider them to be a radical organization. -
BCSbunk
Exactly. The Tea Party is now the fringe freaks like Greenpeace and PETA.HitsRus wrote: ^^^yeah yeah,,,divide and conquer...try to turn one elemnent againstthe other...we get the strategy. Sure there are fringe elements...just like radicals at PETA and Greenpeace who engage in unlawful destruction/vandalism. The fringe is going to go somewhere.
YOUR problem is trying to keep the center in line....and they are not buying your attempt to link the tea party movement to the Klan
The Klan mentality of hatred has infested it with stupidity.
Ron Paul has libertarian ideals like amnesty for illegal immigrants. You see the Klan will tell you hell no to amnesty for illegal immigrants. Shame the Tea Party went the way of the Klan.
I have little problems with Ron Paul and Libertarian ideals however the New Tea Party is nothing like the Libertarian ideals, which supports abortion and gay marriage and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I can take the smaller government in exchange for more liberty for Gays and Immigrants and womans choice.
That is not what I am hearing from the New Tea party it sounds like a Klan meeting minus the robes. -
Writerbuckeye
See, you can SAY that the Tea Party is "fringe" all you want, and that doesn't make it true.
The media can report on the Tea Party as if it's fringe or radical all it wants, and that doesn't make it true, either.
Like I said, this is a simple attempt by liberals and the media to discredit a group that scares the crap out of them because (1) it's gaining popularity and (2) its principles are contrary to the government power grab that Obama and his folks are now undertaking.
If this were the 1970s and people ONLY got their information from places like the networks, the Washington Post and NY Times, this type of campaign would probably work.
With all the new media out there, it's destined to fail miserably because there are too many sources reporting the truth and too many people have access to it. -
BCSbunk
And you can say it is not and that is not true either.Writerbuckeye wrote: See, you can SAY that the Tea Party is "fringe" all you want, and that doesn't make it true.
The media can report on the Tea Party as if it's fringe or radical all it wants, and that doesn't make it true, either.
Like I said, this is a simple attempt by liberals and the media to discredit a group that scares the crap out of them because (1) it's gaining popularity and (2) its principles are contrary to the government power grab that Obama and his folks are now undertaking.
If this were the 1970s and people ONLY got their information from places like the networks, the Washington Post and NY Times, this type of campaign would probably work.
With all the new media out there, it's destined to fail miserably because there are too many sources reporting the truth and too many people have access to it.
However I can post the real tapes of the Tea Partiers and their rascist, homophobic behaviour which is being called out by the likes of Frum.
So you can be in denial all you like when it looks like duck........ -
jhay78
Not sure either why the Klan is relevant here, but I guess BCSBunk forgot a few things:Little Danny wrote: What's with all this talk about the Klan?? The Klan has not had any power in this country in a long time. Sure the Klan still exisits, but its influence on national/local politics is not where it was in the 1920's or the 1960's. Some act as if it is a mainstream organization in our country, when in fact it is very impotent. Even Conservatives consider them to be a radical organization.
Democrats founded the Klan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
It's very existence is due to opposition to Republican policy of freeing slaves and integrating them into society.
Sen. Robert Byrd (D- W.Va.) was a longtime Klansman
This article is a few years old, but it's a nice reminder of how Democrats use the race card to re-enslave Blacks to their ideology:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500
It seems the red herrings of "Oh yeah, well you're a racist" and "Oh yeah, well you're just favoring rich people and evil corporations" are common liberal strategies when they have no facts, logic, or genuinely good ideas to counter conservatism. -
majorspark
Wrong. Ron Paul does not support amnesty for illegals.BCSbunk wrote: Ron Paul has libertarian ideals like amnesty for illegal immigrants. You see the Klan will tell you hell no to amnesty for illegal immigrants. Shame the Tea Party went the way of the Klan.
http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htmWe haven’t talked about the economics of illegal immigration. You can’t solve this problem as long as you have a runaway welfare state & excessive spending & the wiping out of the middle class through inflation, because that’s what directs the hostility, is people are hurting. When we have all these mandates on hospitals and on schools. There’s an incentive for a lot of our people not to work, because they can get welfare. Then there’s a lot of incentive because they know they’re going to get amnesty. We gave it to the illegals in the ‘80s. Then, we put mandates on the states to compel them to have medical care. And you say, well, that’s compassionate. What happens if the hospital closes and then the people here in this country don’t get medical care? So you can’t divorce it from the economics. You’ve got to get rid of the incentives. No amnesty. No forced benefits. It just won’t work if you try to see this in a vacuum. You have to deal with it as a whole, as an economic issue as well
Wrong again on abortion.BCSbunk wrote: I have little problems with Ron Paul and Libertarian ideals however the New Tea Party is nothing like the Libertarian ideals, which supports abortion and gay marriage and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
And I support his method of handling abortion issue.Paul, a former OB-GYN, said his anti-abortion position was based on his view that a fetus was a human being with the same rights as any other person. Just as he advocated personal privacy that would not give people the right's to commit murder, he did not view a woman's claim to her own body as superior to the fetus's right to life.
"It's a legal position because I honor and respect the rights of the mother. But your home too; your home is your castle," Paul said. "I don't want any government in your home: no searches without warrants, no cameras. But you can't kill your baby in your home."
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/View_hosts_grill_Paul_on_abortion_1204.htmlhe would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. But Paul said state governments should be able to decide for themselves how to regulate abortion. "But I want to sort this out the way the constitution mandates, and that is at the local level."
Then you should advocate for the states to decide these issues for themselves.BCSbunk wrote: I can take the smaller government in exchange for more liberty for Gays and Immigrants and womans choice. -
CenterBHSFan
jhay78 wrote: This article is a few years old, but it's a nice reminder of how Democrats use the race card to re-enslave Blacks to their ideology:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500
This reminds me of a show I saw on the History channel once, of the great Mississippi flood of '27. Essentially, one of the premises of the show was how black people were basically enslaved (and murdered by dessertion) again - by and large from democrats.
Here are some links to tell the tale:
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2202
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2717627
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flood/timeline/index.html
......................................................
I really think that trying to point fingers at the Tea partiers and/or conservatives in general as racist Klansmen, is VERY self-defeating! -
Footwedge
Back in the 20's the Democrats were referrnced as the "racist" party. But that flip flopped in the 60's.CenterBHSFan wrote:jhay78 wrote: This article is a few years old, but it's a nice reminder of how Democrats use the race card to re-enslave Blacks to their ideology:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500
This reminds me of a show I saw on the History channel once, of the great Mississippi flood of '27. Essentially, one of the premises of the show was how black people were basically enslaved (and murdered by dessertion) again - by and large from democrats.
Here are some links to tell the tale:
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2202
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2717627
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/flood/timeline/index.html
......................................................
I really think that trying to point fingers at the Tea partiers and/or conservatives in general as racist Klansmen, is VERY self-defeating! -
Footwedge
Robert Byrd was in fact a klansman for about 8 years. He was a member of the Democratic Party. But this was in the 1940's. The Democrat Party became the party of civil rights in the 60's. At that time, the bluedog, hardcore, ultra conservatives left the Dems and joined the GOP.jhay78 wrote:
Not sure either why the Klan is relevant here, but I guess BCSBunk forgot a few things:Little Danny wrote: What's with all this talk about the Klan?? The Klan has not had any power in this country in a long time. Sure the Klan still exisits, but its influence on national/local politics is not where it was in the 1920's or the 1960's. Some act as if it is a mainstream organization in our country, when in fact it is very impotent. Even Conservatives consider them to be a radical organization.
Democrats founded the Klan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
It's very existence is due to opposition to Republican policy of freeing slaves and integrating them into society.
Sen. Robert Byrd (D- W.Va.) was a longtime Klansman
This article is a few years old, but it's a nice reminder of how Democrats use the race card to re-enslave Blacks to their ideology:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500
It seems the red herrings of "Oh yeah, well you're a racist" and "Oh yeah, well you're just favoring rich people and evil corporations" are common liberal strategies when they have no facts, logic, or genuinely good ideas to counter conservatism. -
Footwedge
Spunk...the libertarians are pretty much divided on the pro life/abortion debate. They have a solid lean towards the government staying out regarding homosexuals. Are their racists with the Ron Paul group? I'm sure there were. But that issue was never discussed at the meetings I attended in 08.BCSbunk wrote:
Exactly. The Tea Party is now the fringe freaks like Greenpeace and PETA.HitsRus wrote: ^^^yeah yeah,,,divide and conquer...try to turn one elemnent againstthe other...we get the strategy. Sure there are fringe elements...just like radicals at PETA and Greenpeace who engage in unlawful destruction/vandalism. The fringe is going to go somewhere.
YOUR problem is trying to keep the center in line....and they are not buying your attempt to link the tea party movement to the Klan
The Klan mentality of hatred has infested it with stupidity.
Ron Paul has libertarian ideals like amnesty for illegal immigrants. You see the Klan will tell you hell no to amnesty for illegal immigrants. Shame the Tea Party went the way of the Klan.
I have little problems with Ron Paul and Libertarian ideals however the New Tea Party is nothing like the Libertarian ideals, which supports abortion and gay marriage and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I can take the smaller government in exchange for more liberty for Gays and Immigrants and womans choice.
That is not what I am hearing from the New Tea party it sounds like a Klan meeting minus the robes.
The fundamental beliefs that are unilateral amongst all libertarians....a balanced budget...a true free enterprise system, and an across the board stoppage of unneeded federal expenses. This encompasses all subsidies, safety net programs, and unnecessary miltary missions. -
BCSbunk
The official Libertarian party stance on Abortion is pro-choice. Now personally I would say that people are split but the official party platform is pro-choice along with amnesty and by default gay marriage because that is a private concern rather than government concern.Footwedge wrote:
Spunk...the libertarians are pretty much divided on the pro life/abortion debate. They have a solid lean towards the government staying out regarding homosexuals. Are their racists with the Ron Paul group? I'm sure there were. But that issue was never discussed at the meetings I attended in 08.BCSbunk wrote:
Exactly. The Tea Party is now the fringe freaks like Greenpeace and PETA.HitsRus wrote: ^^^yeah yeah,,,divide and conquer...try to turn one elemnent againstthe other...we get the strategy. Sure there are fringe elements...just like radicals at PETA and Greenpeace who engage in unlawful destruction/vandalism. The fringe is going to go somewhere.
YOUR problem is trying to keep the center in line....and they are not buying your attempt to link the tea party movement to the Klan
The Klan mentality of hatred has infested it with stupidity.
Ron Paul has libertarian ideals like amnesty for illegal immigrants. You see the Klan will tell you hell no to amnesty for illegal immigrants. Shame the Tea Party went the way of the Klan.
I have little problems with Ron Paul and Libertarian ideals however the New Tea Party is nothing like the Libertarian ideals, which supports abortion and gay marriage and amnesty for illegal immigrants.
I can take the smaller government in exchange for more liberty for Gays and Immigrants and womans choice.
That is not what I am hearing from the New Tea party it sounds like a Klan meeting minus the robes.
The fundamental beliefs that are unilateral amongst all libertarians....a balanced budget...a true free enterprise system, and an across the board stoppage of unneeded federal expenses. This encompasses all subsidies, safety net programs, and unnecessary miltary missions.
I have no problems with those. I do have problems with the new infliltration in the tea party that do not have even a clue of what the Libertarian party platform is.
For those that do not believe that the LP is pro-choice
http://www.lp.org/platform
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
I would welcome the Libertarian platform in its entirety but I am afraid that is not going to happen, too many in this country who want everything they do not like banned. Such as gay rights, abortion amnesty pulling our troops etc. -
HitsRus
Sorry, still not buying your attempt to make the Tea Party a bunch of Klansman...FAIL.
I'm not buying either that you "would welcome the Libertarian Party platform in its entirety" ...You would have to give up the fundamental beliefs as posted by footwedge.
"The fundamental beliefs that are unilateral amongst all libertarians....a balanced budget...a true free enterprise system, and an across the board stoppage of unneeded federal expenses. This encompasses all subsidies, safety net programs, and unnecessary miltary missions."
A lot of governments are formed from coalitions...and the Tea party may be one that is morphing into one. A lot of people who may not necessarily agree across the board, are coming together to stop the unbridled expansion of government being foisted upon us. -
CenterBHSFan
BCSbunk wrote: I would welcome the Libertarian platform in its entirety but I am afraid that is not going to happen, too many in this country who want everything they do not like banned. Such as gay rights, abortion amnesty pulling our troops etc.
Yeah, I know what you mean - but you forgot
- conservatism
- restricted federal government
- common sense spending
- and so on. -
gibby08
1.Longtime Klan member? You call one year a long time? While is membership in the Klan is disgusting,don't go accusing Sen.Byrd of being being somekind of long standing Klan member or somethingjhay78 wrote:
Sen. Robert Byrd (D- W.Va.) was a longtime Klansman
This article is a few years old, but it's a nice reminder of how Democrats use the race card to re-enslave Blacks to their ideology:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16500
2.Now we are enslaving people?? Are you out of your mind? -
CenterBHSFan
If Robert Byrd was only in the Klan for a year, starting in 1942, why then, was he writing to the Grand Wizard in 1947 stating that WV needed a rebirth of the Klan and every other state?
Not buying it. -
majorspark
You mean like those banning someone from protecting a human life before it is born, or those wanting to ban others from defining marriage as a union between a man and women, or those that want to ban enforcement of laws governing legal immigration, perhaps you mean those who force state governments to pass laws banning a nineteen year old from enjoying a beer legally, yet he is deemed responsible enough to spill blood on the battlefield, or most recently banning a healthy young man who chooses to take a minimal risk and forgo health insurance in order to provide himself with a present need.BCSbunk wrote: too many in this country who want everything they do not like banned. Such as gay rights, abortion amnesty pulling our troops etc.
You advocate central power to implement "bans" you approve of on all 300 million Americans. I advocate the balance of that power be distributed between the states an localities. We will all never agree on these issues. Let the states and localities decide how best to govern them. That way if you disagree you can at least have the option of moving.
Take note if the central government ruled all 300 million of us on the gay marriage issue for no one of the same sex in this country would be able to legally marry today. Federal law bans the recognition of gay marriage. It cuts both ways. -
BCSbunk
You are living in a fantasy land. The states lost their sovereignty in the civil war, game over.majorspark wrote:
You mean like those banning someone from protecting a human life before it is born, or those wanting to ban others from defining marriage as a union between a man and women, or those that want to ban enforcement of laws governing legal immigration, perhaps you mean those who force state governments to pass laws banning a nineteen year old from enjoying a beer legally, yet he is deemed responsible enough to spill blood on the battlefield, or most recently banning a healthy young man who chooses to take a minimal risk and forgo health insurance in order to provide himself with a present need.BCSbunk wrote: too many in this country who want everything they do not like banned. Such as gay rights, abortion amnesty pulling our troops etc.
You advocate central power to implement "bans" you approve of on all 300 million Americans. I advocate the balance of that power be distributed between the states an localities. We will all never agree on these issues. Let the states and localities decide how best to govern them. That way if you disagree you can at least have the option of moving.
Take note if the central government ruled all 300 million of us on the gay marriage issue for no one of the same sex in this country would be able to legally marry today. Federal law bans the recognition of gay marriage. It cuts both ways.
I want what is fair and just and you dictating who can get an abortion or not is just plain tyranny. Mind your own business and your own household. Same with gays mind your own business and your own household etc.
If you really want to know how I view politics I lean towards anarcho-syndicalism, but that is like you, in fantasy land. That is not reality and is not going to be in reality in our lifetimes.
I do not want big government so please do not misunderstand my position. I do however want what is best for all people in a utilitarian sense. I think UHC is a fundementally good idea though the government is probably going to botch it moreso than we could do it.
Since we have big and huge ass government anyways I would prefer what will help the most people. We all live in society together and should help. In my ideal world there is no "governor" to tell you how to run your life and in yours there is no federal government telling you how to run your life.
So I am for UHC in a philosophical moral sense that it is moral and the right thing to do, not necessarily that the government will do it the best way.
It is however better than the option of allowing a corporation to show compassion because if all laws and regulations were dropped we all would be making as little as possible.