Writerbuckeye;610965 wrote:I have no doubt Obama's ideal country would lean much closer to socialism than it would capitalism -- but it's probably best to use terms like socialistic when referring to pieces of legislation or programs, as opposed to people. As already noted, there are too many variables at work to label people accurately.

I completely agree with that Writer.

I'm sorry, i know i bitch and bitch and bitch about this, constantly, but it is just one of my main pet peeves.

Calling legislation socialistic is far, far more accurate than the comments about something being akin to communism, socialism, Marxism, fascism, etc., all at the same time.

I'm much more likely to take someone or something seriously if they refer to democratic legislation as socialistic, and leave at that, instead of freaking saying that Karl Marx himself is walking around in D.C. in the guise of democrat politicians.

More far right wing nazi propaganda fear fear fear thats all they want to do and divide divide and then conquor

Thinthickbigred;611099 wrote:More far right wing nazi propaganda fear fear fear thats all they want to do and divide divide and then conquor

*sigh* :rolleyes:

fan_from_texas;609112 wrote:I'm a little unclear on this. How will this bring Social Security into question? I haven't followed the health care debate all that closely (mostly because it affects me less than things like energy policy or tax reform), but I haven't heard any of the "experts" take this line. There are superficial comparisons between the health care mandate and SS, but my (admittedly limited) understanding is that there are nuanced differences that make the analogy fail.

It seems to me that if you take issue with those in the right who are arguing a slippery slope about government takeover, they may have reason to take issue with you over arguing a slippery slope about social security.

Of course, like I said, I'm not a health care expert, and I'm open to being corrected on this issue. But it seems to me that throwing out "social security" is a scare tactic for political purposes, not something well grounded in reality.

Not a scare tact at all. The decision of a few people to not purchase health insurance forces the rest of us to subsidize their costs if they exercise their right to be treated in an emergency room. Judge Hudson’s ruling against the individual mandate, is that purchasing health insurance is the ultimate individual decision, and that abridging this liberty would, in Hudson’s words, “invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.” I think there are larger Constitutional issue here. Putting aside what’s in the Bill of Rights, which was ratified after the main body of the Constitution, do you believe the Constitution puts any restrictions on the powers of the federal government? If your answer is yes, what restrictions would those be? And what test would you use to determine what the federal government can and can’t do? it’s hard to see what’s left that would be off-limits.

Insurance company's are large interstate corporations. The Commerce Clause enables the Congress to set up regulations that enables the individual mandates clause. I do not think it is a stretch to wonder if the courts determine that the Federal government can't mandate people to purchase insurance why can they mandate you to participate in Social Security?

Thinthickbigred;611099 wrote:More far right wing nazi propaganda fear fear fear thats all they want to do and divide divide and then conquor

"Nazi" = National Socialist = Leftist

jhay78;615693 wrote:"Nazi" = National Socialist = Leftist

Nazi=fascism, which uses elements from the right and left as it was an authoritarian socialist party. Remember, the Soviets despised the Nazi's and what they were doing and likewise the Nazi's thought communism was a bridge too far.

Either way, I think we can all agree that the usage of the Nazi needs to be purged from our national lexicon. No one or no thing today is a terrible or as evil as the Nazi's.

ptown_trojans_1;615953 wrote:Nazi=fascism, which uses elements from the right and left as it was an authoritarian socialist party. Remember, the Soviets despised the Nazi's and what they were doing and likewise the Nazi's thought communism was a bridge too far.

Either way, I think we can all agree that the usage of the Nazi needs to be purged from our national lexicon. No one or no thing today is a terrible or as evil as the Nazi's.

Agreed- I was just pointing out that the German word Nazi is short for National Socialist. And I think the word gets used a lot more when speaking of conservative/ right-wingers in the US today- just my observation.

ptown_trojans_1;615953 wrote:Nazi=fascism, which uses elements from the right and left as it was an authoritarian socialist party. Remember, the Soviets despised the Nazi's and what they were doing and likewise the Nazi's thought communism was a bridge too far.

Either way, I think we can all agree that the usage of the Nazi needs to be purged from our national lexicon. No one or no thing today is a terrible or as evil as the Nazi's.

While I'll agree that we should stop using the term "Nazi" to disparage the political opposition, I strongly disagree that no one or no thing today is as terrible or as evil as the Nazi's.

The single-mindedness of radical Islam and its tactics of using terror, gruesome beheadings, hijacking airliners full of innocent people and flying them into skyscrapers full of innocent people, suicide bombings, fascist-like legalism subjugating its own people based on an extreme version of Sharia law, and even its over-the-top hatred of Jews is quite similar to Nazism.

The evil exists even today.

It's really no surprise that this is Lie of the year, it did have help!

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012090003

believer;616213 wrote:While I'll agree that we should stop using the term "Nazi" to disparage the political opposition, I strongly disagree that no one or no thing today is as terrible or as evil as the Nazi's.

The single-mindedness of radical Islam and its tactics of using terror, gruesome beheadings, hijacking airliners full of innocent people and flying them into skyscrapers full of innocent people, suicide bombings, fascist-like legalism subjugating its own people based on an extreme version of Sharia law, and even its over-the-top hatred of Jews is quite similar to Nazism.

The evil exists even today.

People who hijack Islam are evil, but no where close to Nazi's. Sorry. Apples and oranges really.
The jihadis are more like Mussolini, Qaaddfi, Saddam, Pol Pot and those types more than Nazis.

Until someone starts to eradicate whole populations on a grand industrial style scale, that starts to total 5-6 million, as well as take over nearly a continent and have the military support of a strong nation, then yeah, they can be compared to Nazis. Until then, drop it. It gives the jihadis too much credit.

ptown_trojans_1;616866 wrote:People who hijack Islam are evil, but no where close to Nazi's. Sorry. Apples and oranges really.
The jihadis are more like Mussolini, Qaaddfi, Saddam, Pol Pot and those types more than Nazis.

Until someone starts to eradicate whole populations on a grand industrial style scale, that starts to total 5-6 million, as well as take over nearly a continent and have the military support of a strong nation, then yeah, they can be compared to Nazis. Until then, drop it. It gives the jihadis too much credit.

The "jihadists" may not have the military might of a strong nation behind it but your original statement was, "No one or no thing today is a terrible or as evil as the Nazi's." If radical Islam weren't so decentralized it would be every bit as terrible as the Nazis and it is already most certainly as evil.

There's no dropping it because it's the truth. Don't attempt to tell me that Nazi-like evil no longer exits on this planet...it absolutely does.

The "lie of the year" thing is nothing more than a shiny object distracting people from the important, which is that the "reform" legislation is a gigantic shitburger.

The decision of a few people to not purchase health insurance forces the rest of us to subsidize their costs if they exercise their right to be treated in an emergency room

The 'right to be treated in an emergency room.... ????? Is that hidden somewhere in the Bill of Rights that I don't know about?

For those who don't believe in the slippery slope of liberalism, there is the perfect example. Because someone passed a law saying that Emergency Room cannot turn you down, we now have justification to pass more crap. Perhaps the solution is to take away the entitlemnet of free emergency room treatment, and people would be more motivated to purchase health insurance, and act responsibly toward their healthcare.

Bigred1995;616853 wrote:It's really no surprise that this is Lie of the year, it did have help!

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012090003

I refuse to believe that you're one of those people who put the blame of governmental failings onto FOX news channel(s).

At the height of the health care reform debate last fall, Bill Sammon, Fox News' controversial Washington managing editor, sent a memo directing his network's journalists not to use the phrase "public option."
Instead, Sammon wrote, Fox's reporters should use "government option" and similar phrases -- wording that a top Republican pollster had recommended in order to turn public opinion against the Democrats' reform efforts.

I can see where there would/could be "intent" there, but those two phrases mean and imply the same thing anyway, so does it really matter?

So, I also feel inclined to point out something that is REALLY misleading to the viewing public. We've all seen this at least a few times, right?

[video=youtube;UYKQJ4-N7LI][/video]

When in reality, that news program was showcasing a man carrying and trying to display it as racism towards a black President, and the man they were showcasing - they artfully edited out of the picture that the man was in fact black himself.

So, if we're going to bring up FOX as a downfall of political agenda's, I figured out that I might as well balance out your post.

They're all terrible.

We should start a thread where we just post videos of dumb things the news anchors or hosts say.

I mean, look at the ridiculousness of Gretchen Carleson on the wikileaks shit.

[video=youtube;ZNKRQN0owz0][/video]

She literally said "lower class" and then was trying to hunt down something to prosecute Assange with. Assange did what any sane person would do if they were a journalist and had this information given to them.

Those words do mean the same thing when speaking about the public option but it's clear that Fox intended it to make the Public Option seem as a government intrusion.

Fox isn't the only network that does shit like that I'm sure. They all do it but it is sad whenever they do.

I Wear Pants;617267 wrote: Those words do mean the same thing when speaking about the public option but it's clear that Fox intended it to make the Public Option seem as a government intrusion.

Well, seeing as the whole bill is government intrusion, it wouldn't be far off the mark would it? LOL

I'm not sticking up for FOX in particular. But perhaps because I've been opposed to this bill since day one, I've got an obvious bias? (of course)

But, I don't see the point in trying to nitpick a difference between two phrases that mean the same thing. It's impossible. Like I said, I can see where the intent is there, but it doesn't make a difference at all for an end result.

I think you've got a good idea on stupidity showcased by various media! Maybe that thread SHOULD be started!

It does make a difference when they constantly have people on for interviews and hosts (Glenn Beck) who talk about how evil the government/anything government is. Then they replace a word with "government". Sure, it isn't inaccurate in this case but it's a conscious effort to make people think more poorly of the public option then they may otherwise have. Which isn't a very good thing. You can still think that this is a terrible bill and recognize that doing shit like that is not cool.

I'm going to start that thread once I do a few other things here.

ptown_trojans_1;616866 wrote:People who hijack Islam are evil, but no where close to Nazi's. Sorry. Apples and oranges really.
The jihadis are more like Mussolini, Qaaddfi, Saddam, Pol Pot and those types more than Nazis.

Until someone starts to eradicate whole populations on a grand industrial style scale, that starts to total 5-6 million, as well as take over nearly a continent and have the military support of a strong nation, then yeah, they can be compared to Nazis. Until then, drop it. It gives the jihadis too much credit.

dont really understand why you have a man under his rule killed over 2 million people mixed in with the rest. They are nothing compared to him

ptown_trojans_1;616866 wrote:People who hijack Islam are evil, but no where close to Nazi's. Sorry. Apples and oranges really.
The jihadis are more like Mussolini, Qaaddfi, Saddam, Pol Pot and those types more than Nazis.

Until someone starts to eradicate whole populations on a grand industrial style scale, that starts to total 5-6 million, as well as take over nearly a continent and have the military support of a strong nation, then yeah, they can be compared to Nazis. Until then, drop it. It gives the jihadis too much credit.

Just because that certain "someone" can't or doesn't have the ability to do it, doesn't mean they wouldn't do it in a heartbeat if they could.

Bill Gates gives a billion dollars to a charity.

I would if I could. Therefore I am Bill Gates?

Bigdogg;615640 wrote:Insurance company's are large interstate corporations. The Commerce Clause enables the Congress to set up regulations that enables the individual mandates clause. I do not think it is a stretch to wonder if the courts determine that the Federal government can't mandate people to purchase insurance why can they mandate you to participate in Social Security?

Good points. Now, maybe it's state law, but you could also argue the individual mandate already has a precedent in forcing drivers to carry liability insurance. The argument is a little different, that if you injure someone we need insurance their medical and work-loss will be paid...but not entirely dissimilar with the burden of uninsured medical costs transferring to the rest of us.

I Wear Pants;618312 wrote:Bill Gates gives a billion dollars to a charity.

I would if I could. Therefore I am Bill Gates?

Your analogy is incorrect.

Do you honestly believe that if radical Islam had a solid source of financial and military might that it would behave in a more rational manner? Would they obey international law and treaties? If they had possession of nuclear weapons, for example, would they not use them?

Based on what I've observed the answer to all of these questions would be a resounding no.

HitsRus;616968 wrote:The 'right to be treated in an emergency room.... ????? Is that hidden somewhere in the Bill of Rights that I don't know about?

For those who don't believe in the slippery slope of liberalism, there is the perfect example. Because someone passed a law saying that Emergency Room cannot turn you down, we now have justification to pass more crap. Perhaps the solution is to take away the entitlemnet of free emergency room treatment, and people would be more motivated to purchase health insurance, and act responsibly toward their healthcare.

You Constitutionalists people kill me. Do you really believe that our for fathers really thought the Bill of Rights would cover everything that this County will ever need?

Look up Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

believer;618324 wrote:Your analogy is incorrect.

Do you honestly believe that if radical Islam had a solid source of financial and military might that it would behave in a more rational manner? Would they obey international law and treaties? If they had possession of nuclear weapons, for example, would they not use them?

Based on what I've observed the answer to all of these questions would be a resounding no.

The same could be said about many radical Christian groups as well.

The point is that they will not ever achieve the financial and military might to ever get even close to the Nazis. As such, it's silly to call them Nazis.

HitsRus;616968 wrote:The 'right to be treated in an emergency room.... ????? Is that hidden somewhere in the Bill of Rights that I don't know about?

For those who don't believe in the slippery slope of liberalism, there is the perfect example. Because someone passed a law saying that Emergency Room cannot turn you down, we now have justification to pass more crap. Perhaps the solution is to take away the entitlemnet of free emergency room treatment, and people would be more motivated to purchase health insurance, and act responsibly toward their healthcare.

Even if it were not a right, wouldn't it be the case that people such as yourself with your particular moral philosophy would help them anyways? Most Americans call themselves Christians and Christian Morality, if followed, would call for such individuals to help these irresponsible persons anyway, no? I'm not saying I think that it should be a "right" to be treated in an emergency room. What I am saying is that I think that point really seems moot when popular morality would create a moral obligation to help those people anyways. I think this is perhaps evidenced by other threads I've created describing a situation wherein people who were on their way to a nice dinner noticed persons in grave danger and most who responded agreed that they would save those people.