English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

please include resources

2007-11-12 16:27:57 · 4 answers · asked by Anhell 1 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

4 answers

Lets see....
Con 1 Socialized medicine....one need only look at the failure of the programs in France, UK and Canada to see why. Uk asking mothers not to come to the hospital to give birth, Canada puting people with cancer on 6 month waiting lists, etc, etc...the news is out there.
Con 2 They want to raise your taxes, either with your approval or without so they can pay for all their nanny programs. They've been telling people they can't smoke, and where, but then raise the taxes to supposedly help..."the children". Many of the states that got settlements from big tobacco didn't even use it to shore up their state health care programs..which is what it was supposedly all about.
Con 3 Look to New Jersey. Voter slapped down funding for a new stem cell research building and program. No comment on the stem cell part...but the Government there decided to assume the voters didn't know what they were talking about and they are going through with it anyways.
Con 4 Whether it be an organization, a person, a place, a party, whatever, Progressives have always been about breaking down the walls. Not for any good purpose, otherwise i'd support it, but just because they in their own minds thought they had the right. Thus the case of the woman that got into the Citadel for military training. She didn't get there to forge some new path for women, the got in just to force her way into a place that had traditions, then she dropped out. She quit.
Another case and point. Alot of mens clubs where old people talked, relaxed, smoke cigars with brandy was invaded or attempted to be so due to women and their supposed right to go anywhere they wanted. I guess women can have they're clubs, but men can't have theirs. Obviously the issue didn't gain traction because you find gender exclusive places here and there today, but in the late 80's it was the rage.
Con 5 They have alot of these old throw-back anti-vietnam losers from the 60's in the crowd. Whom continue to think they were right about their supposed peace movement...which ended up mostly a death movement ..at least for our allies. 1.6 million camped or killed in South vietnam and Laos. They teach principles that mess with society at large and are just plain inflamitory. They are less patriotic, less accepting of authority, they've infiltrated our higher learning institutes to polute the young minds of Americans....So many points to prove this. Take the Duke Lacross students accused of raping the black stripper. There was no evidence, they were aquitted. No DNA, no witness's. Nothing, yet 61 liberal and insensed professors wrote and signed a letter condemning them for an act they never commited. The danger of course is, for a liberal of this sort, they can say or do what they want, and never have to say they are sorry or print a retraction. And if they just happen to ruin someone's life, oh well, they meant well. Call it a day and go home and have a glass of wine.
Do I have to stop at 5 cons ? there are soo many, and for each one there's many examples in history to prove it.
Statistically the 60's crowd of baby boomers have been the most costly to America. They have always been there to cause hate and discontent, to question things that don't really need it or didn't solve anything, just proliferated the discontent. They are anti-establishment, anti-Government, pretty much Anti - anything they don't like as if the world is suppose to revolve around them. They can't even admit when they screw up.
Pros..........hmmm......ummm...........
Still thinking...........................
Oh, there's now naked exhibitions in traditional Museums of what use to be real art resulting from some misconstrewed idea that expressing one's self and freedom to call anything art without actually having any standards. I imagine this will get more young men involved with art, and maybe at the same time, while they are there, a little real culture in their lives.
Can't think of much good...sorry. One can always claim they were the first to ring the bell on global warming and any other such panic button topics. But the truth is, the world never needed a chicken little. The chicken little's never helped anything or solved anything. it was the people with the facts, the calm cool and collective heads that sat down and figured out a plan of action. Why I have lost some of my respect for the scientific community is Science has been the end all be all of my life. I use it all the time to shut the stupid up and discredit the idiots that no one whould be listening to. It has been, at least in the past cut and dry.
Todays scientists...which i'd guess some are of the baby boomer persuasion, are sloppy. They jump on topics like global warming when they don't have enough information or proof. Weather models can be interpreted any way you want, Every day another scientist comes forward to prove that we don't know it all, or that we were wrong about something we thought we knew. To this day no one's been able to explain to me why the ozone hole was the largest in a 1956 expedition when that was before the use of CFC's.
This is sloppy science, and don't blame the companies for jumping on the band wagon to make a quick buck. That is what companies do. Instead you should critisize the institutions , the sloppy science and yourself for believing it and not being skeptical. or demanding the science to prove it.

2007-11-12 16:54:27 · answer #1 · answered by Nightwind 7 · 0 2

Wow! great question! experts: a million) The WWE is often finding for clean expertise (as with NXT) 2) The WWE is the innovator of countless great fits (casket, hell in a cellular, removing chamber). 3) The WWE travels around sufficient so as that no count number the place you reside, probability is you are able to discover them a minimum of a million-2 circumstances a twelve months. 4) The announcers (tremendously Lawler and JR whilst he develop into nonetheless there) are very knowledgable in wrestling and do a fabulous job of commentating the fits. 5) you are able to tell that countless the precise point superstars love and are very committed to the corporation. CONS: a million) The tickets to maximum stay exhibits are ridiculously overpriced (Sorry yet upwards of $250 for a ringside seat at a PPV is loopy). 2) often circumstances there is too lots conversing and not sufficient wrestling. i don't care to take heed to honestly everyone trash talk and decrease a promo for the 1st quarter-hour of each teach only to establish a significant adventure for the night. 3) the main activities on uncooked and Smackdown are interrupted too lots and it forces human beings to ought to pay for the PPV. 4) some very proficient superstars who deserve a push into the main adventure spotlight do never get it. 5) The PPVs are way too high priced. (They was once $19.ninety 9 according to PPV and now they vary each of how as much as $fifty 5 according to PPV).

2016-09-29 03:27:43 · answer #2 · answered by southand 4 · 0 0

Pros
1. Socialised medicine in the UK, Australia, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Belgium, Spain, Italy, France and Canada. or, all other western countries (OECD) but the US. Unlike the US, all citizens in these countries get medical care when they need it. Needless to say, this is pretty helpful to economic productivity. The US has waiting lists - check the Institute of Medicine (IOM) site. the US rations medicine - 40% of citizens have no guaranteed access to medical care when they need it because they don't have insurance. That's rationing.
2. Equal rights for women. There is no downside to this one; you know the progressives have won when the conservatives appoint a black female secretary of state.
3. Equal rights for gays. Like so many other things, Bush has lost this one for Old America conservatives - most young people support gay marriage. By a longshot.
4. The welfare state. Even Thatcher and Reagan and Bush haven't been able to get rid of the welfare state, only tinker with it. In all western countries, the welfare state has offered most disadvantaged citizens a shot at equal opportunity and in Europe, drew the teeth of the communist threat. Laissez faire(ish) USA has the 9th highest GDP per capita in the world; social democrat Sweden, with 55% of its GDP in the public sector, almost the same at 10th. And Sweden doesn't have the massive economies of scale enjoyed by the US. If it is supported, the welfare state works and empowers the citizenry to be as productive as possible.
5. Identifying and acting on the global warming. The debate is over; even Bush has had to humiliatingly capitulate on this one. US conservatives have let everyone on the planet down when it comes to global warming. We just don't know how badly yet.

Cons.
There are no cons to progressivism. The whole conservative agenda is just a carpetbag full of old, used leftwing causes. If it was up to conservatives, we'd still be wearing grass skirts and banging each other over the head with clubs.

2007-11-12 20:38:54 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

i don't know

2007-11-12 16:32:53 · answer #4 · answered by loving boy 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers