Then they came for us...

[SAT2]

The Democrats have a plan for controlling health-care costs. Paul Ryan doesn’t. - The Washington Post

Rhetoric. No substance. Fail.

Agreed.

Wow, that was lame.

 

[Intense]

You're calling all government authoritarian, simply because they have authority. For example, we are forced to pay taxes. Does that mean that we live under authoritarian rule in the US? No.

I'm calling Democrats authoritarian because the have a clear preference for powerful, centralized authority when it come to solving our problems. With the ACA as our example, they first make the assumption that government should decide how we pay for our health care. But even if we grant that, they could have easily devised a system that was decentralized, and localized - allowing more diversity and more options for states and communities to devise solutions that fit their needs (something along the lines of how we deal with public education, for example).

But they chose instead to create a federal regulatory regime that would dictate terms, that would tell us what kind insurance we must buy and who we can buy it from. This is where the corporatism comes into play. They didn't even try to hide it. Obama made quite a show of having all the major 'players' in the industry 'sit at the table' as the spoils of the health care power grab were divvied up. I frankly don't understand how self-professed liberals could stomach watching the reps from the insurance industry, big pharma, doctors associations, hospitals, etc, etc.... haggling over the rights to control us as if we were so much livestock.

Really, they could easily have designed that?

I don't see anything that changes my point-you are objecting to a federal government having any authority. You are not showing that our federal government is authoritarian.

Authoritarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it's you that has a problem distinguishing between Federalism and Nationalism, and living under a Federal Constitution, which philosophy is more appropriate. I'm laughing too, not for the same reason though, nor with you. Hew the derailing started long before either of us was born. No reason to be gulping down the Kool-Aid though.

 

[SAT2]

I'm calling Democrats authoritarian because the have a clear preference for powerful, centralized authority when it come to solving our problems. With the ACA as our example, they first make the assumption that government should decide how we pay for our health care. But even if we grant that, they could have easily devised a system that was decentralized, and localized - allowing more diversity and more options for states and communities to devise solutions that fit their needs (something along the lines of how we deal with public education, for example).

But they chose instead to create a federal regulatory regime that would dictate terms, that would tell us what kind insurance we must buy and who we can buy it from. This is where the corporatism comes into play. They didn't even try to hide it. Obama made quite a show of having all the major 'players' in the industry 'sit at the table' as the spoils of the health care power grab were divvied up. I frankly don't understand how self-professed liberals could stomach watching the reps from the insurance industry, big pharma, doctors associations, hospitals, etc, etc.... haggling over the rights to control us as if we were so much livestock.

Really, they could easily have designed that?

I don't see anything that changes my point-you are objecting to a federal government having any authority. You are not showing that our federal government is authoritarian.

Authoritarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it's you that has a problem distinguishing between Federalism and Nationalism, and living under a Federal Constitution, which philosophy is more appropriate. I'm laughing too, not for the same reason though, nor with you. Hew the derailing started long before either of us was born. No reason to be gulping down the Kool-Aid though.

In the case of fascism, it's extremist nationalism. I'm not sure what the rest of your post means, it reads like you're just trying to find a wedge so you can say something.

 

[koshergrl]

Extreme nationalism AND authoritarianism.

 

[Intense]

Really, they could easily have designed that?

I don't see anything that changes my point-you are objecting to a federal government having any authority. You are not showing that our federal government is authoritarian.

Authoritarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think it's you that has a problem distinguishing between Federalism and Nationalism, and living under a Federal Constitution, which philosophy is more appropriate. I'm laughing too, not for the same reason though, nor with you. Hew the derailing started long before either of us was born. No reason to be gulping down the Kool-Aid though.

In the case of fascism, it's extremist nationalism. I'm not sure what the rest of your post means, it reads like you're just trying to find a wedge so you can say something.

Or like you got off on the wrong floor, wandering aimlessly, imposing your will on everyone you meet without their consent. Sorry to be hard on you.

I look at Federalism as appropriately seeking the will of the Governed, from the ground up. Nationalism as dictating from the top down.

The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[SAT2]

More of the same.

 

[Intense]

Federalist #10 is not that easily dismissed.

 

[Intense]

In fairness, if you had to choose between Justice and Control, where would you find yourself?

 

[SAT2]

Is it necessary to be so vague? Is it an attempt to show some kind of superiority?

 

[Intense]

Is it necessary to be so vague? Is it an attempt to show some kind of superiority?

I'm not trying to be vague. Think Fundamental.
Approaching a problem using Federalist Principles, Each State is it's own Lab, Experimenting on It's own terms, at least in part. The approaches that show promise advance to the next level. Not all Solutions are Universal. Not all fixes or remedies apply to the whole. When you tailor a Suit, is it more important that it fits the Customer, or that it is Uniform to All Suits you Tailor? If you had to choose between Justice and Control, where would you find yourself? Would the "Men's Warehouse" approve?

 

[SAT2]

Is it necessary to be so vague? Is it an attempt to show some kind of superiority?

I'm not trying to be vague. Think Fundamental.
Approaching a problem using Federalist Principles, Each State is it's own Lab, Experimenting on It's own terms, at least in part. The approaches that show promise advance to the next level. Not all Solutions are Universal. Not all fixes or remedies apply to the whole. When you tailor a Suit, is it more important that it fits the Customer, or that it is Uniform to All Suits you Tailor? If you had to choose between Justice and Control, where would you find yourself? Would the "Men's Warehouse" approve?

Then it's fundamentally vague.

The states do exactly that, but there are limits. For example, we don't have slavery as legal in any state, nor do we have states where it's legal to prevent black people or women from voting. If you decide that you're not going to allow disabled children an education, then you're going to forgo federal dollars, and face some lawsuits that you're going to lose. KWIM?

I prefer justice, always. But when I bring it up, the righties get in a twist.

Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Oddball]

and I ask the obvious.... "What evidence would you accept without question?"

I doubt you'd give me an honest answer there either.

Without question? Why do you make such a demand? You go from one evasion to another, projecting less and less confidence by the minute.

If you've got something other than tired internet ha-has to contribute, please do.

Because you've been presented with a slew of evidence that your Utopian socialist/progressive "social democracy" always -yes, always- eventually devolves into either complete tyranny and/or collapses from its sheer bureaucratic weight....Yet you flit from evasion of the fact to outright denial of examples of such held right up to your nose....Right up to that evasion of the question.

So the very relevant question still stands....What evidence would you accept?

 

[SAT2]

and I ask the obvious.... "What evidence would you accept without question?"

I doubt you'd give me an honest answer there either.

Without question? Why do you make such a demand? You go from one evasion to another, projecting less and less confidence by the minute.

If you've got something other than tired internet ha-has to contribute, please do.

Because you've been presented with a slew of evidence that your Utopian socialist/progressive "social democracy" always -yes, always- eventually devolves into either complete tyranny and/or collapses from its sheer bureaucratic weight....Yet you flit from evasion of the fact to outright denial of examples of such held right up to your nose.

So the very relevant question still stands....What evidence would you accept?

Bullshit. The USSR was not at any time a social democracy, nor was Nazi Germany, nor Mussolini's Italy, nor Mao's China. You keep pretending something that just isn't so, and then insisting that I go along with your crazy accusations.

Social democracies are states like modern Germany, Norway, and Finland. None of which are devolving into tyranny, or collapsing from bureaucratic weight.

Deal with the real world. Not the right wing fantasy in your head.

 

[Oddball]

The devolved into tyranny from the "social democracy", you ignoramus....Try reading posts for comprehension sometime.

Now, what evidence would you accept?...Be specific, dodge-asaurus rex.

 

[Intense]

Is it necessary to be so vague? Is it an attempt to show some kind of superiority?

I'm not trying to be vague. Think Fundamental.
Approaching a problem using Federalist Principles, Each State is it's own Lab, Experimenting on It's own terms, at least in part. The approaches that show promise advance to the next level. Not all Solutions are Universal. Not all fixes or remedies apply to the whole. When you tailor a Suit, is it more important that it fits the Customer, or that it is Uniform to All Suits you Tailor? If you had to choose between Justice and Control, where would you find yourself? Would the "Men's Warehouse" approve?

Then it's fundamentally vague.

The states do exactly that, but there are limits. For example, we don't have slavery as legal in any state, nor do we have states where it's legal to prevent black people or women from voting. If you decide that you're not going to allow disabled children an education, then you're going to forgo federal dollars, and face some lawsuits that you're going to lose. KWIM?

I prefer justice, always. But when I bring it up, the righties get in a twist.

Social justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or, ... You are an Idiot? You just can't catch on to why Totalitarianism is, but, you find the Power addictive, huh. Keep on keeping on in your War with Liberty. Squashing Rights, vague as they are, but, hey, that lock step march just feels right. Who's gonna notice anyway? Justice Trumps preconceived notion, agenda, and Political Correctness. Face to face, you have allot to let go of. You cannot both abandon Individual Liberty and Honestly be an Advocate for it. You need to recheck your allegiance.

 

[SAT2]

The devolved into tyranny from the "social democracy", you ignoramus....Try reading posts for comprehension sometime.

Now, what evidence would you accept?...Be specific, dodgasaurus rex.

No, they didn't. Don't be silly. It's like someone saying that Hitler was a socialist. Tyrants misuse political terminology as part of their strategy of disinformation. At no time did the USSR, or Mao's China, or Nazi Germany, function like a social democracy.

 

[SAT2]

Or like you got off on the wrong floor, wandering aimlessly, imposing your will on everyone you meet without their consent. Sorry to be hard on you.

I look at Federalism as appropriately seeking the will of the Governed, from the ground up. Nationalism as dictating from the top down.

The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

You went back and added the bolded parts after I read them. So it's more clear what you meant, and also more clear that you're attempting to make yourself appear superior. As if.

When talking about fascism, nationalism is another way of saying extreme national pride, to the point of bigotry. Not a way of governing.

Or, ... You are an Idiot? You just can't catch on to why Totalitarianism is, but, you find the Power addictive, huh. Keep on keeping on in your War with Liberty. Squashing Rights, vague as they are, but, hey, that lock step march just feels right. Who's gonna notice anyway? Justice Trumps preconceived notion, agenda, and Political Correctness. Face to face, you have allot to let go of. You cannot both abandon Individual Liberty and Honestly be an Advocate for it. You need to recheck your allegiance.

Yeah, I've got such a lot of power. I'm in a war FOR liberty. Not against it.

 

[Oddball]

Translation: There is no evidence that you will accept....You prefer to obstinately live in the dream world where socialistic mob rule is a viable option, if only we can find the right tyrants to lord over the hoi polloy.

Duly noted.

Unsubscribe.

 

[SAT2]

Translation: There is no evidence that you will accept....You prefer to obstinately live in the dream world where socialistic mob rule is a viable option, if only we can find the right tyrants to lord over the hoi polloy.

No. What I won't accept is false evidence. False evidence is what you've presented.

At no time did the USSR, or Nazi Germany, or Mao's China function like a social democracy. Not in the beginning, not in the middle, and not at the end. To hold them up as proof of anything about a social democracy is ridiculous.

Modern Germany, Norway, and Finland are social democracies. They have not descended into tyranny, they show no signs of doing so. They have not collapsed under the weight of their bureaucracy. This is the reality that you have ignored for posts and for pages.

 

[Intense]

Or like you got off on the wrong floor, wandering aimlessly, imposing your will on everyone you meet without their consent. Sorry to be hard on you.

I look at Federalism as appropriately seeking the will of the Governed, from the ground up. Nationalism as dictating from the top down.

The Federalist Papers - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

You went back and added the bolded parts after I read them. So it's more clear what you meant, and also more clear that you're attempting to make yourself appear superior. As if.

When talking about fascism, nationalism is another way of saying extreme national pride, to the point of bigotry. Not a way of governing.

Or, ... You are an Idiot? You just can't catch on to why Totalitarianism is, but, you find the Power addictive, huh. Keep on keeping on in your War with Liberty. Squashing Rights, vague as they are, but, hey, that lock step march just feels right. Who's gonna notice anyway? Justice Trumps preconceived notion, agenda, and Political Correctness. Face to face, you have allot to let go of. You cannot both abandon Individual Liberty and Honestly be an Advocate for it. You need to recheck your allegiance.

Yeah, I've got such a lot of power. I'm in a war FOR liberty. Not against it.

You went back and added the bolded parts after I read them. So it's more clear what you meant, and also more clear that you're attempting to make yourself appear superior. As if.

Yep. I felt sorry for you, so I sprayed some Bactine in your Boo Boo.
I care nothing about superiority or inferiority. I'm just calling them as I see them. You have every right to be you, I have every right to be me. I am neither asking for or giving advice on posting style. Neither am I trying to manipulate conversation or placing myself above you. You are projecting.

Yeah, I've got such a lot of power. I'm in a war FOR liberty. Not against it.

Thought, Word, Action, Inaction, reflect Power. Taking Responsibility for Your own, is a start. Progressive Statism Sacrifices Individual Liberty to the Governing Authority, that is Fundamental. It is Required. Deal with it too, while you lecture about Superiority.

Modern Conservatism has more in common with Classic Liberalism, than Statist Progressiveness has in matters of Unalienable Rights, Faith, Speech, Property, Impartial Justice, Liberty.

Statist Progressives share the Traits of Socialists, Nazi's, Communists, Fascists, in matters of Power, Authority, Control, be it Life, Will, Belief, Property, Censorship, Arbitrary Rule. Statist Progressives live for Control over Human Life, 24/7, cradle to grave.

I don't expect you to get this.