Socialism rearing it's ugly head.
Poetic Justice
The Liberal-Socialists are crawling out from under every rock
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
The health care Bill is like a box of Cracker Jacks, you have to buy it
to find out what the surprise inside is?
- The Pelosi Doctrine -
--
A little Liberalism like a little alcohol, can be a good
thing but when either of them take control, they become self destructive.
*MY LIBERTARIAN/Tea Party BAIL-OUT PLAN*
Reducing regulations is primary since regulation is what stifles
commerce, the more regulations, the more it costs our economy. Most
regulations are used by existing businesses to reduce competition, and
competition would help us get out of this depression.
End the "war on drugs" make them legal(increase competition) and sold
at any drug store and push for prostitution to be legal too, that will
take the BIG money out of trafficking in drugs, and that will reduce the
gangs/dealers income and that should reduce the value of sex slaves and
hurt the human trafficking business income also. Why have illegal
prostitutes when there are so many legal tax paying prostitutes out there?
Have the States Ratify an amendment withdrawing the 16th amendment...
Maybe enact something similar to the http://fairtax.org (Federal sales
tax) with the same amendment that removes income tax and the IRS,
preferably a Federal *NEW ITEM* sales tax. This will reduce the number
of tax crimes that people are in jails for and it will give the people
back their privacy. It will also promote *GREEN* living where people
will save more and waste less and buy second hand and wear things out
rather than discard and buy new. Then add the amendment to it that if
they raise tax by 1% they are forced to cut every single expenditure of
the government by 3%.
Begin to draw down troops as needed from around the world. Put half
of our military bases along the southern Border to minimize the amount
of border that the Border patrol needs to watch, the military and
Federal laws will push the illegals to spaces between the military bases.
This tax/border policy will financially assault the drug dealers and
hookers and other underground economy's by forcing them to have to pay
tax when they *spend their money* , which will further reduce the
benefit of dealing in other illegal stuff. We are "right now" taking
money from peoples pay checks before they get them and at the same time
we don't tax drug dealers or hookers and illegals or others at all, we
are penalizing the working Americans. Sales tax will also encourage
saving money rather than encouraging the leveraging of every dime you
can get like income tax does.
This will drive people in the underground economy to become part of the
real economy. It will stop most of the turf killings and end our
Immigration problems with illegals stealing identities since they will
be paying tax(as sales tax). Offer illegals less welfare and charge them
tax and they won't be so eager to come here and we won't need to chase
them......
End Social Security/Medicare, grandfather it out of existence.
Pass an amendment to the constitution that makes all
*laws_and_treaties* have a four year sunset clause, and it requires that
each law/treaty be voted by a separate roll call vote every four years
to continue to be maintained in our laws. There should also be some
constitutional amendments to stifle congress' borrowing and spending.
Pass another amendment creating term limits on congress so the House has
6 terms and the Senate has 2 terms, for a total of 12 years in either
side of congress. WE NEED TO STOP CONGRESS FROM PASSING FRIVOLOUS LAWS
TAXES AND BORROWING AND ENDLESSLY PRINTING MONEY.
We need to quit filling the jails with people over *social taboos* , we
need to take away congress' ability to "social engineer" businesses or
private people by removing the tax code. Government needs to spend
10% less every year until they meet the income of the government. The
way, is to *use both cutting and taxing* , the Congress should implement
a rule to force an across the board spending freeze and then across the
board cuts on the government spending, to do that we have force them to
cut spending 3% for every 1% Leftists raise taxes. SO any tax would
result in spending cuts using a baseline of 10% taxes.
And we need to give up our roll as the police man of the world, let
them fight their own fights. We need fewer people committing crimes, we
need fewer police and prisons....this drug and tax plan.... will reduce
police and prison needs by at least that 10% that this plan suggested
cutting.
NO welfare to corporations, and cut welfare to private people by 10%
each year until it is 10% of today's cost.
Any way you look at it, we're in DEEP for a long time.
Zerkon
> The Liberal-Socialists are crawling out from under every rock
The are no "Liberal-Socialists", there are no "Conservatives" or "Tea
Baggers" there is a *CORPORATE COLLECTIVE* and then everyone else. Some
go along with it and live in this world of phony political definitions
others do not.
It is only a matter of protective stupidity their howling followers will
not spend much time looking into their favorite media entertainers who
all 'say it like it really is'. 'What it really is' is they all work for
or live off of the largest corporations in the world.
Peter Franks
So then, if that is true, then the "*CORPORATE COLLECTIVE*" would have
been the initial driving impetus behind UHC.
That wasn't the case, and largely still isn't.
Sorry man, but UHC has been on the socialist agenda since the beginning.
Nickname unavailable
Dog.com> wrote:
more expose' of conservative crimes, never underestimate the
gullibility of the faithful:sean hannitys freedom alliance:They are
using our severely wounded soldiers and the children of our war dead
to help themselves and their cronies:more conservatives are getting
roped in
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/
March 19, 2010, - 7:15 pm
The Freedom Alliance’s Weak, Empty “Response”; More to Come on This
Fraud
By Debbie Schlussel
As you know, yesterday I posted an extensive expose on the fraud that
is the Freedom Alliance and the associated Freedom Concerts pimped by
Sean Hannity on hard-working Americans who pay their money, thinking
they are helping severely wounded troops and funding college
scholarships for the children of wounded soldiers. As I predicted,
Freedom Alliance finally “responded” with a non-response that was more
lies and obfuscation. You only need to look at their tax forms, which
I posted in my expose, to know what’s going on without the filter of
their lens.
The Sham Continues & the Shallow Wagons Circle
The liars and frauds at Freedom Alliance want to keep the gravy train
going for them and their cronies. So, instead of actually refuting a
single fact, they make claims without any hard evidence . . . because
they don’t have any. None of the circle-the-wagons, fraudulent
“conservatives” defending this group have dared post the tax forms
because they tell the unvarnished truth. One of the “prominent
bloggers” who posted the phony response is Erick Erickson, a nut from
Kentucky, who supports the equally nutty, pro-Iran, anti-American,
anti-Gitmo Rand Paul, and who defended Emily Zanotti, the lunatic who
has been stalking me for four years, who praised Muslim death, rape,
and torture threats against me and my family, and who recently lost a
scurrilous, unhinged attempt to threaten my free speech rights by
trying to challenge my law license (which she did with the
participation of a number of the bloggers now defending Freedom
Alliance). And I love how because the wasteful, lying charity claims
in its response that Vannity paid for all his travel (he, in fact,
paid for none of it and it was in fancy private planes, which I’ll
tell you about in the coming days), that’s now “fact.” Yup, repeating
CYA press releases by perpetrators is now deemed an “exhaustive
investigation.”
Here is my initial response to Freedom Alliance’s extremely weak PR
attempt at covering its hide (I will be posting more, next week, as
I’ve discovered even more sleaze on the group’s part):
In fact, the Freedom Alliance “response” doesn’t answer any of the
questions I raised and goes on to lie more. They don’t address why
they gave a triple amputee only $200—and in fact there are many of
these examples provided in their tax return addendum, but I only cited
a few for brevity’s sake. They also lie and claim that they gave a lot
more money to charity b/c they categorize it as “program expenses.”
But I’m sorry—calling over $3 million in consulting fees, printing,
and postage “program expenses” doesn’t change the fact that it still
went to their cronies, not to a fund and not the soldiers who only got
on average less than $900 apiece. It also doesn’t change the fact that
out of the money spent (I didn’t count the money they claim they
raised for their scholarship fund in my percentages or the figures
would have been even more outrageous against Freedom Alliance), the
vast majority of spending goes to those kinds of expenses.
Also, the “scholarship fund” is really a war chest for something else,
since it isn’t being used to fund scholarships for kids of soldiers
now. If it has $15 million dollars, as they claim, then the interest
alone should fund a free ride for all of the soldiers’ children
currently in college. What are they waiting for? Likely, to convert
the fund to something else, not what the donors intended. Do you
really think people who held bake sales and bought tickets to the
concerts thought they were funding a Merrill Lynch account for a
nebulous promise that some kids of fallen troops might go to college
from it in 20 years? No. They thought they were funding kids to go
to college on a full ride now. But it was all a lie.
As I noted, Hannity said on his nationally-syndicated radio show that
a $30,000 donation from Boca Java will fund a full year for one of
these kids in college. Sadly, it never did. I don’t think anyone
listening to his show thought that he meant 20 years from now. That’s
not what Boca Java thought, according to a company spokeswoman.
We’ve been at war since 2001, when we went into Afghanistan, and we’re
winding down in Iraq. Unless Freedom Alliance wants you to believe
that the soldiers who died there had no kids born before 1992–and
clearly that’s not the case because Freedom Alliance has been giving a
couple hundred kids a pittance for college since at least its tax
filing in 2005, they are ripping these kids off in order to build a
massive war chest and self-perpetuate. Again, with a giant multi-
million dollar fund, why aren’t they giving the kids a free, complete
ride to college? And how many kids of deceased troops will there be in
the future? Enough to exhaust a multi-million dollar fund? Doubtful.
Moreover, because they hoarded millions of dollars, their returns show
the fund shrunk by several million dollars with bad investments and
market losses. That money could have put these kids through college
for the entire time. What’s their excuse for the soldiers with no
limbs and with severe burns? Are they waiting for two decades from now
when technology is better? $165 for a soldier who is blind and his
face blew up? No excuse for that. Their “response” is simply a non-
response and an attempt to cover up the fraud.
Unfortunately for Freedom Alliance, I’ve discovered some interesting
things that involve some other parties and more scamming here. It’ll
make you sick. As a kid of a former wartime U.S. Army man, it makes
me sick. They are using our severely wounded soldiers and the children
of our war dead to help themselves and their cronies. And all the
disinformation in the world won’t fool everyone. It’s an IQ test. If
you believe the propaganda over their own tax forms, you failed. And
you are essentially admitting they lied on their own taxes.
I will be posting more on this and on more fraud at Freedom Alliance,
in the coming days. Stay tuned.
Nickname unavailable
yep teddy roosevelt wanted it. nixon even wanted it. churchhill even
implemented it.
Nickname unavailable
wrote:
> In article <6f9ba02b-4efa-4898-9c2b-6d61aa197...@j21g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> Reagan would take over the country?
>
why didn't john super patriot wayne, enlist, like lots of hollywood
liberals who did enlist. i heard that nancy reagan was a closet
socialist, and reagan protected her during the conservative witch
hunts in the 1950's.
Nickname unavailable
wrote:
> In article <556eda77-b3aa-4482-b192-2d13ce9d4...@m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> lover, Tail Gunner Joe McCarthy. McCarthy knew Hollywood jew commies had
> infiltrated Los Alamos. Women pilots, an obvious commie plot to undermine
> American manhood and morale, were couriers of the secrets as they pretended to
> be ferry pilots to Soviet Union. Jimmy Stewart flew his bomber regularly to
> China to inform the Chicoms. Later Jimmy Stewart flew a mission in Vietnam to
> contact Mao and give him the details of SDI.
>
> The implication of healthcare reform should now be obvious.
>
yep, we are done for now.
> --
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be.
> Silver silverware - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
> Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
Beam Me Up Scotty
The economic crash is eminent.
--
Peter Franks
Since the beginning of UHC, not socialism.
Do you dispute that current argument that UHC is socialist in nature,
and NOT "CORPORATE COLLECTIVE"?
Nickname unavailable
most americans are clueless of americas socilaist past that goes to
the lead up of the american revolution, and the trash canning of
unworkable libertarianism called the confederation. the constitution
is socialistic in nature. the preamble says it all, "WE THE PEOPLE".
the first articles of the constitution are all about legislative
intervention.
what we have today is a plutocracy, courtesy of reaganism. health
care reform is but a shambles because of it. it will be proven that in
its present form its unworkable. the conservatives will try to repeal
it, the stupid democrats may go along, or try to tweak it. the real
liberals in the democratic party will try to fix it with a real
system. anything can happen in a plutocracy.
Michael Coburn
I think that if you are allowed your own definition of "socialism" you
can claim about anything. The problem is that the those on the "right"
seem to use a different definition in each context. They will not allow
themselves to be stuck with any FIRM and non changing definition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism ----------------------------
Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which
advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of
the means of production and allocation of resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So if you are willing to go along with that definition and not be
changing it then we can continue to communicate. I will simply adopt the
position that public ownership of social insurance systems is much more
effective and efficient than private ownership. I do not wish to discuss
any other definition or use of "socialism" because I am simply not an
advocate.
I believe that anyone willing to live in the real world as opposed to
living in a religious bubble can understand my position.
Just today, the wikipedia article on "Social Democracy" has again been
attacked by a socialist claiming that "Social Democracy" is some sort of
footbridge to the failed ideals of Marxists. The true socialist will
abuse the language just as the Reich. The reality is of course very
different in that "Social Democracy" is a coalition of Welfare State and
capitalism. But even that is attacked and undermined by altering the
definition of "Welfare State" and making it nothing more than handouts to
the "welfare queen". The zealots will never accept the actual meanings
of the words. And they will continue to change the definition of the
words to suit their religious economic fundamentalism.
--
"Senate rules don't trump the Constitution" -- http://GreaterVoice.org/60
Peter Franks
I've done quite a bit of study on socialism/communism, and after quite a
bit of distillation, came to the following definition that has yet to be
substantively challenged:
Socialism: benevolence through compulsion.
Form completeness, communism: production through compulsion.
I've stuck with those definitions for quite some time, been in several
discussions re. socialism and the definitions emerge unscathed. I have
no interest in definitions that change or are impossible to
qualify/quantify, and that is why I use the above.
If you would like, we can discuss that definition and agree on it first,
and then resume the discussion at hand, or we can just accept them and
continue the discussion -- your choice.
Peter Franks
Regardless of what we are, or where we came from, UHC is repugnant to
the freedom-loving because it /eliminates choice/.
UHC is great as long as some infinite unseen force provides the
services, but as soon as you start eliminating choice and compelling
usage, you have compromised liberty and that just won't stand.
Michael Coburn
Well... Like I said: If you get to make up your own definitions then
you can win just about any debate. I've already pointed out that this is
a major cornerstone of Republican discourse.
> I've stuck with those definitions for quite some time, been in several
> discussions re. socialism and the definitions emerge unscathed. I have
> no interest in definitions that change or are impossible to
> qualify/quantify, and that is why I use the above.
So if you can have your own definition of "socialism" then I can have my
own definitions too:
I hereby define Republican as lying pig. I've stuck with that definition
for quite some time, been in many discussions and have never seen any
reason to change it. And your redefinition of the word "socialism" is a
testimonial to the accuracy of my definition.
> If you would like, we can discuss that definition and agree on it first,
> and then resume the discussion at hand, or we can just accept them and
> continue the discussion -- your choice.
We have nothing to discuss. You don't get to define "socialism".
Beam Me Up Scotty
Socialists get to tell us what color the Unicorns on their unicorn ranch
are....
If they say they have pink Unicorns then we all need to respect that.
--
Clave
<Then-Fire-A-Full-Spre...@blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote in
message news:4ba6f36a$0$561$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com...
<...>
> Socialists get to tell us what color the Unicorns on their unicorn ranch
> are....
You people are deranged.
Ever wonder what it's like to be talked to as if you were a reasonable
adult?
Jim
Beam Me Up Scotty
You're the Socialist.... tell us what being a Socialist means to you, I
already know what it means in reality!
--
Clave
<...>
> > Ever wonder what it's like to be talked to as if you were a reasonable
> > adult?
>
> > Jim
>
> You're the Socialist.... tell us what being a Socialist means to you, I
> already know what it means in reality!
Sorry, but you don't even seem to know what "reality" means.
Jim
Beam Me Up Scotty
So those Unicorn's color "is" your reality.
--
Nickname unavailable
tax breaks, deregulation, free trade, ayn rand, frederick hayek,
milton freidman, alan greenspan, stupid politicians driven by a their
idiotology of said persons, and all wealthy parasites that benefited
from the polices of those cranks are repugnant to me.
but we are saying good bye to that sorry chapter in our history, and
we want to take care of our own again, instead of throwing people on a
garbage heap. you can always move, you are free to do so. or, you can
look at this as a moral ethical thing to do. try to develop empathy,
pity, and remorse for your fellow human being. toss your idiotology if
the dung heap of bad ideas, where it so richly belongs.
> UHC is great as long as some infinite unseen force provides the
> services, but as soon as you start eliminating choice and compelling
> usage, you have compromised liberty and that just won't stand.
liberty for the desperate to die, priceless.
Peter Franks
I didn't make it up, I distilled the concept and that is the result.
The careful reader will notice that 'my definition' corresponds exactly
to the Wikipedia reference.
I repeat, this isn't my definition; it is the most concise definition of
what socialism is. But so what, let's use the Wikipedia definition,
along with your argument:
"I will simply adopt the position that public ownership of social
insurance systems is much more effective and efficient than private
ownership. "
First, that statement is false. Insurance is already publicly owned.
So, if you are going to be such a stickler for definitions, then try
using the correct ones. I'll rewrite your assertion, correctly:
'I will simply adopt the position that government ownership of social
insurance systems is much more effective and efficient than public or
private ownership.'
First and foremost, presuming for a moment that your unsubstantiated
(and probably wrong) statement that government ownership of anything is
more effective/efficient, what foundation does government even *have*
for mandating effective or efficient? We aren't wards of the state, and
the organization and purpose of government is to *protect rights*, not
ensure effective/efficiency.
Next, let's discuss the /application/ of the above:
Insurance is mandatory.
What does that mean? It means that choice has been eliminated. In
other words, it is counter to freedom. You no longer have a choice in
your involvement in health/medicine, participation is now forced.
Peter Franks
> In article <ho6q89$gut$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> Socialism: benevolence through compulsion.
>
> All governments compell.
So what?
> It's one of the defining characteristic of government.
No, it is the defining characteristic of totalitarianism, of which
socialism is a subset of.
Peter Franks
Interesting. You actually advocate for the elimination of freedoms and
choice.
J
If only Bush was here to save the day with more of his supply side
genius and deregulation. When are the teabaggers planning another
rally to protest their tax cuts while ignoring how Bush bloated
government more than any president in history while protesting Obama?
At least Palin's got a reality show.
Michael Coburn
We see that you continue to make up your own definitions as you go along.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_ownership -------------------
Public ownership (also called state ownership, government ownership or
public property) refers to state ownership or control of any asset,
industry, or enterprise at any level, national, regional or local
(municipal); or to common (full-community) non-state ownership.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Caught lying again.
> So, if you are going to be such a stickler for definitions, then try
> using the correct ones. I'll rewrite your assertion, correctly:
>
> 'I will simply adopt the position that government ownership of social
> insurance systems is much more effective and efficient than public or
> private ownership.'
You have rewritten the statement to be unintelligible. I am not the least
bit surprised
> First and foremost, presuming for a moment that your unsubstantiated
> (and probably wrong) statement that government ownership of anything is
> more effective/efficient, what foundation does government even *have*
> for mandating effective or efficient? We aren't wards of the state, and
> the organization and purpose of government is to *protect rights*, not
> ensure effective/efficiency.
And here we see the rightarded proclivity for insisting that the
rightarded are the authority on the function of government. The
preamble to and Article I of the United States Government seem to
contradict your asshole assertions.
> Next, let's discuss the /application/ of the above:
>
> Insurance is mandatory.
>
> What does that mean? It means that choice has been eliminated. In
> other words, it is counter to freedom. You no longer have a choice in
> your involvement in health/medicine, participation is now forced.
I don't like buying your bombers any more than you like paying for your
health insurance. I have no choice in the matter of Iraq and
Afghanistan. I have no choice in the worldwide protection of brand names
and patents that allow you thieves to get even richer by manufacturing
goods offshore. The Chinese government should simply write "Nike" on the
tennis shoes and not send you assholes any money. I don't need no
stinkin' bombers, but they be "publicly owned".
WangoTango
> >
> > I didn't make it up, I distilled the concept and that is the result. The
> > careful reader will notice that 'my definition' corresponds exactly to
> > the Wikipedia reference.
> >
> > I repeat, this isn't my definition; it is the most concise definition of
> > what socialism is. But so what, let's use the Wikipedia definition,
> > along with your argument:
> >
> > "I will simply adopt the position that public ownership of social
> > insurance systems is much more effective and efficient than private
> > ownership. "
> >
> > First, that statement is false. Insurance is already publicly owned.
>
> We see that you continue to make up your own definitions as you go along.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_ownership -------------------
>
> Public ownership (also called state ownership, government ownership or
> public property) refers to state ownership or control of any asset,
> industry, or enterprise at any level, national, regional or local
> (municipal); or to common (full-community) non-state ownership.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Caught lying again.
A lie of omission is still a lie.
the good 'ol wiki has more than one definition and a simple search
brings BOTH of them up, so why did you choose to ignore the pertinent
one?
Nickname unavailable
you are coming from a angle of extremism, a lack of empathy and
remorse.
Peter Franks
No, I'm not, but thanks for trying to speak on my behalf.
UHC eliminates choice, do you dispute that?
Peter Franks
That is an example of a definition, compare to:
http://www.investorwords.com/3943/public_ownership.html
public ownership
Definition 1
see public company.
Definition 2
Government ownership and operation of an enterprise for the public good.
If you choose to use the Wikipedia definition, make that explicit.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Caught lying again.
>
>> So, if you are going to be such a stickler for definitions, then try
>> using the correct ones. I'll rewrite your assertion, correctly:
>>
>> 'I will simply adopt the position that government ownership of social
>> insurance systems is much more effective and efficient than public or
>> private ownership.'
>
> You have rewritten the statement to be unintelligible. I am not the least
> bit surprised
Actually, I used the terminology that makes it clear. Regardless, if
you can't understand it, we can use your referenced definition of
"public ownership" along with your original statement which is no
different than what I re-wrote.
>> First and foremost, presuming for a moment that your unsubstantiated
>> (and probably wrong) statement that government ownership of anything is
>> more effective/efficient, what foundation does government even *have*
>> for mandating effective or efficient? We aren't wards of the state, and
>> the organization and purpose of government is to *protect rights*, not
>> ensure effective/efficiency.
>
> And here we see the rightarded
And here is where we see that you have no capacity for rational
discussion. Instead of discussing the merits, you disintegrate into
name calling and vitriol. It doesn't phase me and only makes you look
more the fool.
> proclivity for insisting that the
> rightarded are the authority on the function of government. The
> preamble to and Article I of the United States Government seem to
> contradict your asshole assertions.
There is no authority delegated in the Preamble.
Which clause are you referring to in Article I?
>> Next, let's discuss the /application/ of the above:
>>
>> Insurance is mandatory.
>>
>> What does that mean? It means that choice has been eliminated. In
>> other words, it is counter to freedom. You no longer have a choice in
>> your involvement in health/medicine, participation is now forced.
>
> I don't like buying your bombers any more than you like paying for your
> health insurance. I have no choice in the matter of Iraq and
> Afghanistan. I have no choice in the worldwide protection of brand names
> and patents that allow you thieves to get even richer by manufacturing
> goods offshore. The Chinese government should simply write "Nike" on the
> tennis shoes and not send you assholes any money. I don't need no
> stinkin' bombers, but they be "publicly owned".
So, you are complaining about the loss of your choice in those things,
and think that eliminating more choice makes it better? Please explain
exactly how that works...
Michael Coburn
The nice thing about wikipedia is that even asswipes like you can modify
it so ling as you have ample references. What you will find is that the
"investor words" does no hold sway on this particular definition. Even a
business source says you are full of shit:
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/public-ownership.html
> http://www.investorwords.com/3943/public_ownership.html
>
> public ownership
>
> Definition 1
>
> see public company.
>
> Definition 2
>
> Government ownership and operation of an enterprise for the public good.
>
>
> If you choose to use the Wikipedia definition, make that explicit.
http://www.answers.com/topic/public-ownership-1
http://thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006549
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/public+ownership
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Caught lying again.
>>
>>> So, if you are going to be such a stickler for definitions, then try
>>> using the correct ones. I'll rewrite your assertion, correctly:
>>>
>>> 'I will simply adopt the position that government ownership of social
>>> insurance systems is much more effective and efficient than public or
>>> private ownership.'
>>
>> You have rewritten the statement to be unintelligible. I am not the
>> least bit surprised
>
> Actually, I used the terminology that makes it clear. Regardless, if
> you can't understand it, we can use your referenced definition of
> "public ownership" along with your original statement which is no
> different than what I re-wrote.
You are not entitled to your own definitions or your own facts. You have
been inside your rightarded bubble so long you actually believe anything
you pull out of your ass.
>>> First and foremost, presuming for a moment that your unsubstantiated
>>> (and probably wrong) statement that government ownership of anything
>>> is more effective/efficient, what foundation does government even
>>> *have* for mandating effective or efficient? We aren't wards of the
>>> state, and the organization and purpose of government is to *protect
>>> rights*, not ensure effective/efficiency.
>>
>> And here we see the rightarded
>
> And here is where we see that you have no capacity for rational
> discussion. Instead of discussing the merits, you disintegrate into
> name calling and vitriol. It doesn't phase me and only makes you look
> more the fool.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Remaining pig shit deleted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Peter Franks
So that is why you reference it.
And the denigrate me?
I'm sorry, I'm bowing out if this discussion. I had confused you for a
rational being -- sorry, my mistake.
Peter Franks
Lurkers -- take note of the capacity, or lack thereof of the typical
socialist when cornered. They have no capacity for rational discussion,
instead resort to name calling, diversion, and any number of methods of
deceit.
Purely disgusting how these types act. They pretend to be interested in
the 'social needs' of the people, but instead are caught up in their own
self grandeur in their microcosm of intolerance.
Nickname unavailable
you keep coming at it from a angle of extremism. and of course
empathy and remorse, you simply ignore it. millions have no choice but
to go without in your liberty fantasy land. thats all about to change.
Peter Franks
No extremism, that's just your inability to actually answer a simple
question.
UHC eliminates choice. Have a nice day.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>> All the Tea in China Blue wrote:
>>> In article <ho6q89$gut$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Socialism: benevolence through compulsion.
>>> All governments compell.
>> So what?
>
> only benevolence through compulsion you don't like.
You fail to understand what you read. I said "So what?" -- what
relevance does it have to the discussion? If you are using that as a
basis for your argument, then you had better provide some substance
other than your simpleton "All governments compell[sic]".
>>> It's one of the defining characteristic of government.
>> No, it is the defining characteristic of totalitarianism, of which
>> socialism is a subset of.
>
> Name a government that is not able to compell and remains a government.
Your canard, you justify it: name a government that does compel and
remains free.
Peter Franks
> political science. It's too late to educate you now.
Ha. The old coward standby. The discussion gets tough, and you run
away like a child. What a waste of my time.
Nickname unavailable
why do you have no remorse, sympathy, pity, or empathy for those who
are forced into going without? why won't you answer that simple
question?
Peter Franks
You didn't ask that question, you made a statement. It's your
statement, you defend it.
If you want to know my position, try asking. I have nothing to hide.
Nickname unavailable
this is a statement,
"UHC eliminates choice. Have a nice day."
i am merely asking you what you have against the millions who have no
choice under your system.
Peter Franks
You really need to learn how to read and communicate. Consider:
- I never said I have anything against anyone.
- I never said this was 'my' system.
- I never said I have no remorse.
- I never said I have no sympathy.
- I never said I have no pity.
- I never said I have no empathy.
Yet you have assumed all of the above.
So, it doesn't really appear that you are interested in bi-directional
communication, but rather just spouting off whatever falls into your
head. You can play that game all you want, but not with me.
Do you disagree with my statement that UHC eliminates choice?
Nickname unavailable
i have assumed nothing. you keep coming back to your choice, which is
selfish. its not your choice, its ours. now why are you devoid of
empathy, sympathy, remorse, and pity? are you a sociopath(libertarian)?
Peter Franks
You really don't understand "eliminates choice".
Nickname unavailable
well, its common knowledge that as many as 50 million, or perhaps
more americans are going without health insurance. its common
knowledge that as many as 40,000 or more americans die a year because
they lack health insurance. yet you keep harping on about your ability
to choose.
its common knowledge that sociopaths(libertarians)are obsessed with
themselves, selfish, greedy, corporatists. that lack empathy, remorse,
morals, ethics, empathy, pity, nor have a conscience.
so you keep harping on about choice, and refuse to acknowledge the
common good, which means its all about you:) we are saying its all
about us, the common good. we made the choice, its how democracy
works.
Peter Franks
You made the choice to eliminate choice.
Nothing you have said contradicts what I originally said about UHC. All
that you have tried to do is confuse the issue and the facts with your
assumptions.
Last time: do you dispute the fact that UHC eliminates choice?
Nickname unavailable
yes, i understand the facts confuse you. i have openly said why we
the people have chosen the system that we are implementing today. you
are simply obsessed with only "YOUR" selfish choices, to the detriment
of millions, a sure sign of a sociopath(libertarian).
Peter Franks
Again, you resort to your confusion and assumptions.
The fact remains, UHC eliminates choice. You can't admit that. Strange.
Nickname unavailable
i am not resorting to confusion. the facts are in, we the people
voted in politicians that promised us a real choice. the choice of
economic and health security. we made our choice at the ballot box,
which is our right.
you however are ignoring the reasons why we made the choice we made.
and are obsessed with your own selfish choices.
Peter Franks
I'm just stating fact: UHC eliminates choice, and you, for whatever
reason, can't see nor admit that.
Nickname unavailable
hey its your obsession, and it seems to mean more to you than
morality. in fact, i am sure you do not even know what that means.
what it means to many of us now is the choice of living fear free.
i am unaware of any country that allows you to have freedom of choice
in every aspect of your life. there are things i wish i was free to
chose, but cannot. as a citizen i have rights, and i have
responsibilities. i am not always free to do and pick as i please. its
part of the growing up and maturing process to recognize that.
Peter Franks
Perhaps. And UHC and and the elimination of choice is helping you
mature that much faster. I guess people with absolutely no choice are
the most mature?
Nickname unavailable
that is the response of the immature, and its a straw man.
Peter Franks
No straw man at all, but funny that you should mention that. I made the
statment first that UHC eliminates choice, and all of your responses
have been straw men arguments.
UHC eliminates choice. Just try to slowly say those words, that's 1/2
of your battle to overcome the fear of fact.
Good luck, I'll be rooting for you!!!
Nickname unavailable
>
> > that is the response of the immature, and its a straw man.
>
> No straw man at all, but funny that you should mention that. I made the
> statment first that UHC eliminates choice, and all of your responses
> have been straw men arguments.
>
ROTFLOL!!! we made our choice. i have said it repeatedly. yes i can
understand that morals, ethics, things you have no real understanding
of as strawmen.
> UHC eliminates choice.
it eliminates your choice, what ever that may mean to you. however,
it broadens choice for the rest of us.
Just try to slowly say those words, that's 1/2
> of your battle to overcome the fear of fact.
>
i have no fear. i understand what has happened. i am sure that when
you buckle your seat belt, you live in stark raving mad fear of losing
your choice. to me, i just buckle up.
> Good luck, I'll be rooting for you!!!
i doubt that. you must live a really paranoid life.
Peter Franks
> On Mar 25, 12:34 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>> that is the response of the immature, and its a straw man.
>> No straw man at all, but funny that you should mention that. I made the
>> statment first that UHC eliminates choice, and all of your responses
>> have been straw men arguments.
>>
>
>
> ROTFLOL!!! we made our choice. i have said it repeatedly. yes i can
> understand that morals, ethics, things you have no real understanding
> of as strawmen.
>
>> UHC eliminates choice.
>
>
> it eliminates your choice, what ever that may mean to you. however,
> it broadens choice for the rest of us.
How does it broaden your choice?
Nickname unavailable
it means if one gets sick, one now has health insurance, or, if one
wish's to change jobs, one will not lose their health insurance. if
one wish's to go out on their own, and become self employed, one will
not lose their health insurance. if one has paid insurance companies
all of their lives, gets sick, and gets denied and dies, under the new
system one gets the choice to live. i am sure their are more choices
that others will see also. you must live in a very small sheltered
little world, devoid of most human emotions.
Peter Franks
> On Mar 25, 5:27 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>> On Mar 25, 12:34 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
>>>>> that is the response of the immature, and its a straw man.
>>>> No straw man at all, but funny that you should mention that. I made the
>>>> statment first that UHC eliminates choice, and all of your responses
>>>> have been straw men arguments.
>>> ROTFLOL!!! we made our choice. i have said it repeatedly. yes i can
>>> understand that morals, ethics, things you have no real understanding
>>> of as strawmen.
>>>> UHC eliminates choice.
>>> it eliminates your choice, what ever that may mean to you. however,
>>> it broadens choice for the rest of us.
>> How does it broaden your choice?
>
> it means if one gets sick, one now has health insurance
Unchanged. Same existed before UHC.
> , or, if one
> wish's to change jobs, one will not lose their health insurance.
Unchanged. You could get new health insurance at your new job.
> if
> one wish's to go out on their own, and become self employed, one will
> not lose their health insurance.
Unchanged. You can get new health insurance on your own.
> if one has paid insurance companies
> all of their lives, gets sick, and gets denied and dies, under the new
> system one gets the choice to live.
Denial in coverage comes because of fraud or failure to disclose
pre-existing conditions to the insurer. If you are honest, this isn't
an issue. If you are a liar and a cheat, then you have a problem, but
that is your problem, not mine.
> i am sure their are more choices
> that others will see also. you must live in a very small sheltered
> little world, devoid of most human emotions.
No.
My turn:
You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a
small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is
to forgo health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the
"privilege." (Section 1501).
You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects
that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only
you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drinks a gallon of
whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance
companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a
person's health status. (Section 2701).
You're a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover
pediatric services. You're a woman who can't have children? Tough, your
policy must cover maternity services. You're a teetotaler? Tough, your
policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of
personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).
You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you'd like
to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals
and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A)).
If you are a physician and you don't want the government looking over
your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is
authorized to use your claims data to issue reports that measure the
resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you
provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other
physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes.
It's not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your
practice and patients' care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i)).
You will have to pay an additional 0.5 percent payroll tax on any dollar
you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you
file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the
money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015). That
amount will rise to a 3.8 percent tax in 2013 and will also apply to
investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend
the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask.
(Section 1402).
etc.
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19136
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528137
UHC is for people that can't own up to being responsible adults.
Beam Me Up Scotty
We call them death row inmates, no choice and they are as old as they'll
ever get, they are fully matured, or at will mature no further.
--