10 Things You Must Believe to Oppose Universal Health Care

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by pantsondaground

Do you even know your father?

You put me in my place.

Egads.

[Alumiyum]

Hehehe

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by pantsondaground

Do you know your father?

I am not trying to put you in your place. I think you already know it.
I am just curious. I know DaemonSeid does not have a father.
His father is probably in jail

I'll let you know when I get the results back from Maury.

Are you my daddy?

[DrPhil]

Ummm...again...are you all seriously trying to have a convo with madmax?

Use him for the entertainment that he's worth or ignore him altogether. Typing to him in all seriousness became dumb months ago.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Sort of a silly article.

Sort of silly? This stuff adds nothing to rational and reasonable discourse. It's stupid.

I don't believe in any of those things, yet wildly oppose fascism as done in the Universal Health Care bill.

Fascism? Seriously? The more things change the more they stay the same -- decry anything one disagrees with as fascism. Or socialism, take your pick (though you probably can't pick both).

Was it fascism when Republican lawmakers proposed much of the same stuff in the 1990s?

This kind of over-the-top nonsense also adds nothing to rational discourse -- it's the mirror image of the drivel that DS posted. To equate the health care bill to fascism is just plain ludicrous.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Fascism? Seriously? The more things change the more they stay the same -- decry anything one disagrees with as fascism. Or socialism, take your pick (though you probably can't pick both).

A rather simple definition of fascism would be the marriage between corporations and the state. To force individuals to purchase a certain thing from a certain industry is the epitome of this marriage. I don't decry anything as something...unless it is. And it is. It fits the simple definition. Granted it doesn't show as much totalitarianism as Mussolini's fascism, of course. But it's fascist.

Was it fascism when Republican lawmakers proposed much of the same stuff in the 1990s?

Absolutely.

The Republicans are just as guilty of this stuff.

[AlphaFrog]

I flat-out have a problem with anyone telling me that "to believe X, you must believe Y". No, I don't. Kind of like my history teacher telling me that it's impossible to be against abortion, but for the death penalty - no it's not, because that's what I believe in.

Not to mention that most of those points are silly, extreme examples of ridiculous propaganda. Just because we know the drug companies are screwing us on prices, doesn't mean we want to throw a bureaucrat into that mix.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I flat-out have a problem with anyone telling me that "to believe X, you must believe Y". No, I don't. Kind of like my history teacher telling me that it's impossible to be against abortion, but for the death penalty - no it's not, because that's what I believe in.

Not to mention that most of those points are silly, extreme examples of ridiculous propaganda. Just because we know the drug companies are screwing us on prices, doesn't mean we want to throw a bureaucrat into that mix.

Exactly.

And the scary part of this silliness is, someone out there in the world read this like they were reading the 10 commandments.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

A rather simple definition of fascism would be the marriage between corporations and the state. To force individuals to purchase a certain thing from a certain industry is the epitome of this marriage. I don't decry anything as something...unless it is. And it is. It fits the simple definition. Granted it doesn't show as much totalitarianism as Mussolini's fascism, of course. But it's fascist.

No, it's not, and that's not at all a simple definition of fascism.

A simple definition of fascism might be one that comes from a dictionary: "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

Or one drawn from political science, like this one:

"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."

Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004

The simple hallmarks of fascism are authoritarian and totalitarian-single party states with a nationalistic obsession. What you call the "marriage" between corporations and state isn't necessarily an end in itself but is a means to achieving complete control (authoritarianism/totalitarianism) for the nationalistic purposes. And interestingly with regard to the use of fascism in this instance, one other standard hallmark of fascism is anti-liberalism.

Even if I grant that "marriage between corporations and state" is the simple hallmark of fascism, by your definition all 50 states are already fascist to the extent they require anyone owning a vehicle to purchase auto insurance from the insurance industry. Ditto the federal government and FICA.

Whether you agree with the health care bill or not, this just doesn't come close to fascism.

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Not to mention that most of those points are silly, extreme examples of ridiculous propaganda.

This unfortunately has become standard political "discourse." If someone disagrees with you (the generic you) on something you feel really strongly about, it can't be because reasonable and well-meaning people can come to different conclusions about what is best. No, it has to be because they are socialists, Marxists, fascists, anti-american, elitists . . . .

As George Orwell said about fascism:

"It will be seen that, as used, the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else."

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

Absolutely.

The Republicans are just as guilty of this stuff.

Agree. They had a chance to shrink our nanny state and instead went the complete opposite way. Free stuff is nice but ultimately someone has to pay for it. We can't afford all these giveaways. Plain and simple.