Why Progressives always call it "Reform"

[CrusaderFrank]

That means even though you can now be sent to jail for not buying insurance and the government has access to all your bank accounts, very little has changed because it's called "Reform"

Stop embarrassing yourself. If you haven't read the legislation (and it's painfully obvious that you haven't), your philosophical musings about the provisions you've fabricated aren't worth much.

Wait.

The government does NOT have access to bank accounts?

 

[Big Fitz]

Parties in power almost always lose mid-terms. If you come here and post that's a guarantee that Obama loses I will laugh at you again.

W was the only president in like 80 years to actually gain seats in the mid term in 2002.

 

[Greenbeard]

That means even though you can now be sent to jail for not buying insurance and the government has access to all your bank accounts, very little has changed because it's called "Reform"

Stop embarrassing yourself. If you haven't read the legislation (and it's painfully obvious that you haven't), your philosophical musings about the provisions you've fabricated aren't worth much.

Wait.

The government does NOT have access to bank accounts?

Oh good lord.

 

[JBeukema]

Child labor laws
Unions fair pay and safe working conditions
Food and product safety regulations
Regulation to control financial meltdowns
Social Security

Interventonism =/= lberalism

Won the war against fascism

You really want to brag about the UN?



Illiberal. Socialist in nature and practice.


Illiberal in nature and practice. Espouses 'greater good' to curtail liberty.


Socialist in principle and practice


go right on ahead..







Are you retarded?

Grow up and stop acting like a child, already.

Create media centers for national whining and well you know what they do best.

Right.... because only conservatives engage in dissemination of information and propaganda

Ever heard of agitprop?

More and more and more and more and more and more and more and more whining
More and more and more and more and more and more and more and more and more whining.

Jesus fucking Christ- grow up, moron and stop acting like a mentally disabled child.


That wasn't 'proof' of anything, you dolt- it was an exercise in gross stupidity and childishness.

Hi, you have received -55 reputation points from midcan5.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
backatcha - sorry you live in fantasy.

Regards,
midcan5

Note: This is an automated message.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Stop embarrassing yourself. If you haven't read the legislation (and it's painfully obvious that you haven't), your philosophical musings about the provisions you've fabricated aren't worth much.

Wait.

The government does NOT have access to bank accounts?

Oh good lord.

Section 1173A (pg. 57) "Standardize Electronic Administrative Transactions" and describes the way in which electronic data and financial transactions will be carried out when and if the bill is adopted. It specifically states that the goals "(D) enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual's financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physicican at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card..."

You were saying?

 

[Big Fitz]

Hey daddy... maybe we should get us some a' that reform...

 

[Greenbeard]

Section 1173A (pg. 57) "Standardize Electronic Administrative Transactions" and describes the way in which electronic data and financial transactions will be carried out when and if the bill is adopted. It specifically states that the goals "(D) enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual's financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physicican at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card..."

You were saying?

1) That's not what that says, as it has nothing to do with the government or bank accounts (it effectively refers to real-time claims adjudication between providers and payers).

2) That's not from the reform law. You're referencing a bill, H.R. 3200, that never became law. "Health care reform" as it refers to a law on the books refers to H.R. 3590 and H.R. 4872.

Please, stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Big Fitz]

Section 1173A (pg. 57) "Standardize Electronic Administrative Transactions" and describes the way in which electronic data and financial transactions will be carried out when and if the bill is adopted. It specifically states that the goals "(D) enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual's financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physicican at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card..."

You were saying?

1) That's not what that says, as it has nothing to do with the government or bank accounts (it effectively refers to real-time claims adjudication between providers and payers).

2) That's not from the reform law. You're referencing a bill, H.R. 3200, that never became law. "Health care reform" as it refers to a law on the books refers to H.R. 3590 and H.R. 4872.

Please, stop embarrassing yourself.

And here we go into the Greenbeard law mixer. Don't believe your lying eyes... believe my carefully culled links. It's on the interwebs, it has to be true!

 

[The T]

Hey daddy... maybe we should get us some a' that reform...

Awesome flick!

 

[Woyzeck]

"WHOEVER TAKES UPON HIM to reform the government of a city, must, if his measures are to be well received and carried out with general approval, preserve at least the semblance of existing methods, so as not to appear to the people to have made any change in the old order of things; although, in truth, the new ordinances differ altogether from those which they replace."

Much like Obama's view of America, I have been arrogant, dismissive, even derisive in explaining why Discourse XXV is appropriate in revealing the methodology of "Progressives" as they continue so drain the USA of its freedoms and liberty and replace it with modern American Fascism.

In the above sentence Machiavelli talks about implementing changes that new "differ altogether from those which they replace". This isn't tinkering around the edges, this is a fundamental change but because it's called "Reform and sold as such, it make it more palatable to the conquered.

Such is Health Care Reform, Banking Reform, US Automotive Reform, Energy Reform.

Progressives claim they are not fundamentally rewriting the Constitution and changing the basic relationship between the State and the Conquered through Health Care Reform. How could it be, see the word "reform"?

That means even though you can now be sent to jail for not buying insurance and the government has access to all your bank accounts, very little has changed because it's called "Reform"

I applaud you for finally responding how it links with everything else.

However, your argument is really quite stretching to the point of disbelief. Particularly since you assert these changes must be radical ones that transform something by not showing it. Here's the example Machiavelli gives in the paragraph immediately after it:

This tendency being recognized by the Romans at the
very outset of their civil freedom, when they appointed
two consuls in place of a single king, they would not
permit the consuls to have more than twelve lictors, in
order that the old number of the king’s attendants might
not be exceeded. Again, there being solemnized every
year in Rome a sacrificial rite which could only be performed
by the king in person, that the people might not
be led by the absence of the king to remark the want of
any ancient observance, a priest was appointed for the
due celebration of this rite, to whom was given the name
of Rex sacrificulus, and who was placed under the orders
of the chief priest. In this way the people were
contented, and had no occasion from any defect in the
solemnities to desire the return of their kings. Like precautions
should be used by all who would put an end to
the old government of a city and substitute new and
free institutions. For since novelty disturbs men’s minds,
we should seek in the changes we make to preserve as
far as possible what is ancient, so that if the new magistrates
differ from the old in number, in authority, or in
the duration of their office, they shall at least retain
the old names.

Upon further inspection of the context of the chapter, it turns out my original assertion was wrong, but then again so is yours. No one is fundamentally reforming the country in any manner. Reform* in this sense, is not about individual policy, but about changing government types. It's apparent in the Roman example he gave, the Romans switched to a republic, but kept some of the oldest monarchical traditions to make the switch to a republic more smooth in the people's eyes.

So, how is the country being reformed? Are rights being taken away? Do we no longer elect leaders? Has Congress legislated some of the checks and balances out of government? Do we have dictators ruling by decree instead of a firm and sound republic?

How are these examples of reform you gave, health care (isn't that all about insurance? Although Greenbeard's covering that quite nicely), financial, automotive (I'm pretty sure the gov't is only temporary owning at least one or two car companies) fundamentally rewriting the Constitution and everything else you went on about?

*By the way, basing off conclusions of a modern usage of a word from a text from a foreign language from centuries ago in an entirely different political climate (city states) is a very, very stupid thing to do.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"WHOEVER TAKES UPON HIM to reform the government of a city, must, if his measures are to be well received and carried out with general approval, preserve at least the semblance of existing methods, so as not to appear to the people to have made any change in the old order of things; although, in truth, the new ordinances differ altogether from those which they replace."

Much like Obama's view of America, I have been arrogant, dismissive, even derisive in explaining why Discourse XXV is appropriate in revealing the methodology of "Progressives" as they continue so drain the USA of its freedoms and liberty and replace it with modern American Fascism.

In the above sentence Machiavelli talks about implementing changes that new "differ altogether from those which they replace". This isn't tinkering around the edges, this is a fundamental change but because it's called "Reform and sold as such, it make it more palatable to the conquered.

Such is Health Care Reform, Banking Reform, US Automotive Reform, Energy Reform.

Progressives claim they are not fundamentally rewriting the Constitution and changing the basic relationship between the State and the Conquered through Health Care Reform. How could it be, see the word "reform"?

That means even though you can now be sent to jail for not buying insurance and the government has access to all your bank accounts, very little has changed because it's called "Reform"

I applaud you for finally responding how it links with everything else.

However, your argument is really quite stretching to the point of disbelief. Particularly since you assert these changes must be radical ones that transform something by not showing it. Here's the example Machiavelli gives in the paragraph immediately after it:

This tendency being recognized by the Romans at the
very outset of their civil freedom, when they appointed
two consuls in place of a single king, they would not
permit the consuls to have more than twelve lictors, in
order that the old number of the king’s attendants might
not be exceeded. Again, there being solemnized every
year in Rome a sacrificial rite which could only be performed
by the king in person, that the people might not
be led by the absence of the king to remark the want of
any ancient observance, a priest was appointed for the
due celebration of this rite, to whom was given the name
of Rex sacrificulus, and who was placed under the orders
of the chief priest. In this way the people were
contented, and had no occasion from any defect in the
solemnities to desire the return of their kings. Like precautions
should be used by all who would put an end to
the old government of a city and substitute new and
free institutions. For since novelty disturbs men’s minds,
we should seek in the changes we make to preserve as
far as possible what is ancient, so that if the new magistrates
differ from the old in number, in authority, or in
the duration of their office, they shall at least retain
the old names.

Upon further inspection of the context of the chapter, it turns out my original assertion was wrong, but then again so is yours. No one is fundamentally reforming the country in any manner. Reform* in this sense, is not about individual policy, but about changing government types. It's apparent in the Roman example he gave, the Romans switched to a republic, but kept some of the oldest monarchical traditions to make the switch to a republic more smooth in the people's eyes.

So, how is the country being reformed? Are rights being taken away? Do we no longer elect leaders? Has Congress legislated some of the checks and balances out of government? Do we have dictators ruling by decree instead of a firm and sound republic?

How are these examples of reform you gave, health care (isn't that all about insurance? Although Greenbeard's covering that quite nicely), financial, automotive (I'm pretty sure the gov't is only temporary owning at least one or two car companies) fundamentally rewriting the Constitution and everything else you went on about?

*By the way, basing off conclusions of a modern usage of a word from a text from a foreign language from centuries ago in an entirely different political climate (city states) is a very, very stupid thing to do.

My analysis is so spot on it's staggering.

Progressives have honed to perfection the the notion of selling a fundamental transformation as "reform" with Health Care "reform" and banking "reform" being the 2 most recent examples.

Health Care "Reform" is a total, fundamental rewrite of the relationship between the Government and the people (subjects or conquered also fits) The government directs you what you MUST purchase and then monitors you forever! That's "reform"

And because they don't want their game exposed, they come here still telling me/us, "Who are you going to believe us or your lying eyes?"

A 2,000 page document no one read, and Democrats (Sen Dingell) are now on record as saying it finally gives them the control they've sought for the past 100 years over the American people, but I'm wrong about Reform.

Yeah. Sure.

 

[Woyzeck]

"WHOEVER TAKES UPON HIM to reform the government of a city, must, if his measures are to be well received and carried out with general approval, preserve at least the semblance of existing methods, so as not to appear to the people to have made any change in the old order of things; although, in truth, the new ordinances differ altogether from those which they replace."

Much like Obama's view of America, I have been arrogant, dismissive, even derisive in explaining why Discourse XXV is appropriate in revealing the methodology of "Progressives" as they continue so drain the USA of its freedoms and liberty and replace it with modern American Fascism.

In the above sentence Machiavelli talks about implementing changes that new "differ altogether from those which they replace". This isn't tinkering around the edges, this is a fundamental change but because it's called "Reform and sold as such, it make it more palatable to the conquered.

Such is Health Care Reform, Banking Reform, US Automotive Reform, Energy Reform.

Progressives claim they are not fundamentally rewriting the Constitution and changing the basic relationship between the State and the Conquered through Health Care Reform. How could it be, see the word "reform"?

That means even though you can now be sent to jail for not buying insurance and the government has access to all your bank accounts, very little has changed because it's called "Reform"

I applaud you for finally responding how it links with everything else.

However, your argument is really quite stretching to the point of disbelief. Particularly since you assert these changes must be radical ones that transform something by not showing it. Here's the example Machiavelli gives in the paragraph immediately after it:

This tendency being recognized by the Romans at the
very outset of their civil freedom, when they appointed
two consuls in place of a single king, they would not
permit the consuls to have more than twelve lictors, in
order that the old number of the king’s attendants might
not be exceeded. Again, there being solemnized every
year in Rome a sacrificial rite which could only be performed
by the king in person, that the people might not
be led by the absence of the king to remark the want of
any ancient observance, a priest was appointed for the
due celebration of this rite, to whom was given the name
of Rex sacrificulus, and who was placed under the orders
of the chief priest. In this way the people were
contented, and had no occasion from any defect in the
solemnities to desire the return of their kings. Like precautions
should be used by all who would put an end to
the old government of a city and substitute new and
free institutions. For since novelty disturbs men’s minds,
we should seek in the changes we make to preserve as
far as possible what is ancient, so that if the new magistrates
differ from the old in number, in authority, or in
the duration of their office, they shall at least retain
the old names.

Upon further inspection of the context of the chapter, it turns out my original assertion was wrong, but then again so is yours. No one is fundamentally reforming the country in any manner. Reform* in this sense, is not about individual policy, but about changing government types. It's apparent in the Roman example he gave, the Romans switched to a republic, but kept some of the oldest monarchical traditions to make the switch to a republic more smooth in the people's eyes.

So, how is the country being reformed? Are rights being taken away? Do we no longer elect leaders? Has Congress legislated some of the checks and balances out of government? Do we have dictators ruling by decree instead of a firm and sound republic?

How are these examples of reform you gave, health care (isn't that all about insurance? Although Greenbeard's covering that quite nicely), financial, automotive (I'm pretty sure the gov't is only temporary owning at least one or two car companies) fundamentally rewriting the Constitution and everything else you went on about?

*By the way, basing off conclusions of a modern usage of a word from a text from a foreign language from centuries ago in an entirely different political climate (city states) is a very, very stupid thing to do.

My analysis is so spot on it's staggering.

Progressives have honed to perfection the the notion of selling a fundamental transformation as "reform" with Health Care "reform" and banking "reform" being the 2 most recent examples.

Health Care "Reform" is a total, fundamental rewrite of the relationship between the Government and the people (subjects or conquered also fits) The government directs you what you MUST purchase and then monitors you forever! That's "reform"

And because they don't want their game exposed, they come here still telling me/us, "Who are you going to believe us or your lying eyes?"

A 2,000 page document no one read, and Democrats (Sen Dingell) are now on record as saying it finally gives them the control they've sought for the past 100 years over the American people, but I'm wrong about Reform.

Yeah. Sure.

Changing the relationship between government and it's people? Frank, for Christ's sake, the government making people buy insurance is nothing new. Hell, my state government requires me to have car insurance in order to even drive a damned car. Again, just how is this fundamentally changing the government?

 

[Big Fitz]

Hell, my state government requires me to have car insurance in order to even drive a damned car. Again, just how is this fundamentally changing the government?

You don't have to buy a car. Second, you can drive a car without insurance, as long as it doesn't leave private property. Thirdly, a car is property, not a part of you. Fourth, cars are not a right. Fifth, there is no power in the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that allows the forcing the purchase of a product for citizenship.

Fail x 5

Again, just how is this fundamentally changing the government?

Look at it from an abortion point of view. By forcing a woman to get insurance, they can control the means in which is administered and she has no recourse because she must have health insurance. So if they tell her to abort her child, she must. If she must carry the child to term, she must.

A woman no longer has the right to control her own body thanks to health care.

How's that sit with your relativistic morals?

 

[Greenbeard]

By forcing a woman to get insurance, they can control the means in which is administered and she has no recourse because she must have health insurance. So if they tell her to abort her child, she must. If she must carry the child to term, she must.

This is nonsensical.

 

[Big Fitz]

>cough< China's one child policy >cough<

 

[The T]

>cough< China's one child policy >cough<

Whoops.

 

[The T]

"WHOEVER TAKES UPON HIM to reform the government of a city, must, if his measures are to be well received and carried out with general approval, preserve at least the semblance of existing methods, so as not to appear to the people to have made any change in the old order of things; although, in truth, the new ordinances differ altogether from those which they replace."

Much like Obama's view of America, I have been arrogant, dismissive, even derisive in explaining why Discourse XXV is appropriate in revealing the methodology of "Progressives" as they continue so drain the USA of its freedoms and liberty and replace it with modern American Fascism.

In the above sentence Machiavelli talks about implementing changes that new "differ altogether from those which they replace". This isn't tinkering around the edges, this is a fundamental change but because it's called "Reform and sold as such, it make it more palatable to the conquered.

Such is Health Care Reform, Banking Reform, US Automotive Reform, Energy Reform.

Progressives claim they are not fundamentally rewriting the Constitution and changing the basic relationship between the State and the Conquered through Health Care Reform. How could it be, see the word "reform"?

That means even though you can now be sent to jail for not buying insurance and the government has access to all your bank accounts, very little has changed because it's called "Reform"

I applaud you for finally responding how it links with everything else.

However, your argument is really quite stretching to the point of disbelief. Particularly since you assert these changes must be radical ones that transform something by not showing it. Here's the example Machiavelli gives in the paragraph immediately after it:

This tendency being recognized by the Romans at the
very outset of their civil freedom, when they appointed
two consuls in place of a single king, they would not
permit the consuls to have more than twelve lictors, in
order that the old number of the king’s attendants might
not be exceeded. Again, there being solemnized every
year in Rome a sacrificial rite which could only be performed
by the king in person, that the people might not
be led by the absence of the king to remark the want of
any ancient observance, a priest was appointed for the
due celebration of this rite, to whom was given the name
of Rex sacrificulus, and who was placed under the orders
of the chief priest. In this way the people were
contented, and had no occasion from any defect in the
solemnities to desire the return of their kings. Like precautions
should be used by all who would put an end to
the old government of a city and substitute new and
free institutions. For since novelty disturbs men’s minds,
we should seek in the changes we make to preserve as
far as possible what is ancient, so that if the new magistrates
differ from the old in number, in authority, or in
the duration of their office, they shall at least retain
the old names.

Upon further inspection of the context of the chapter, it turns out my original assertion was wrong, but then again so is yours. No one is fundamentally reforming the country in any manner. Reform* in this sense, is not about individual policy, but about changing government types. It's apparent in the Roman example he gave, the Romans switched to a republic, but kept some of the oldest monarchical traditions to make the switch to a republic more smooth in the people's eyes.

So, how is the country being reformed? Are rights being taken away? Do we no longer elect leaders? Has Congress legislated some of the checks and balances out of government? Do we have dictators ruling by decree instead of a firm and sound republic?

How are these examples of reform you gave, health care (isn't that all about insurance? Although Greenbeard's covering that quite nicely), financial, automotive (I'm pretty sure the gov't is only temporary owning at least one or two car companies) fundamentally rewriting the Constitution and everything else you went on about?

*By the way, basing off conclusions of a modern usage of a word from a text from a foreign language from centuries ago in an entirely different political climate (city states) is a very, very stupid thing to do.

My analysis is so spot on it's staggering.

Progressives have honed to perfection the the notion of selling a fundamental transformation as "reform" with Health Care "reform" and banking "reform" being the 2 most recent examples.

Health Care "Reform" is a total, fundamental rewrite of the relationship between the Government and the people (subjects or conquered also fits) The government directs you what you MUST purchase and then monitors you forever! That's "reform"

And because they don't want their game exposed, they come here still telling me/us, "Who are you going to believe us or your lying eyes?"

A 2,000 page document no one read, and Democrats (Sen Dingell) are now on record as saying it finally gives them the control they've sought for the past 100 years over the American people, but I'm wrong about Reform.

Yeah. Sure.

I said it in the outset of this thread, and I'll say it again...Reform to these people is Centralized Control.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I applaud you for finally responding how it links with everything else.

However, your argument is really quite stretching to the point of disbelief. Particularly since you assert these changes must be radical ones that transform something by not showing it. Here's the example Machiavelli gives in the paragraph immediately after it:



Upon further inspection of the context of the chapter, it turns out my original assertion was wrong, but then again so is yours. No one is fundamentally reforming the country in any manner. Reform* in this sense, is not about individual policy, but about changing government types. It's apparent in the Roman example he gave, the Romans switched to a republic, but kept some of the oldest monarchical traditions to make the switch to a republic more smooth in the people's eyes.

So, how is the country being reformed? Are rights being taken away? Do we no longer elect leaders? Has Congress legislated some of the checks and balances out of government? Do we have dictators ruling by decree instead of a firm and sound republic?

How are these examples of reform you gave, health care (isn't that all about insurance? Although Greenbeard's covering that quite nicely), financial, automotive (I'm pretty sure the gov't is only temporary owning at least one or two car companies) fundamentally rewriting the Constitution and everything else you went on about?

*By the way, basing off conclusions of a modern usage of a word from a text from a foreign language from centuries ago in an entirely different political climate (city states) is a very, very stupid thing to do.

My analysis is so spot on it's staggering.

Progressives have honed to perfection the the notion of selling a fundamental transformation as "reform" with Health Care "reform" and banking "reform" being the 2 most recent examples.

Health Care "Reform" is a total, fundamental rewrite of the relationship between the Government and the people (subjects or conquered also fits) The government directs you what you MUST purchase and then monitors you forever! That's "reform"

And because they don't want their game exposed, they come here still telling me/us, "Who are you going to believe us or your lying eyes?"

A 2,000 page document no one read, and Democrats (Sen Dingell) are now on record as saying it finally gives them the control they've sought for the past 100 years over the American people, but I'm wrong about Reform.

Yeah. Sure.

Changing the relationship between government and it's people? Frank, for Christ's sake, the government making people buy insurance is nothing new. Hell, my state government requires me to have car insurance in order to even drive a damned car. Again, just how is this fundamentally changing the government?

See? There is is again, who are you going to believe a Progressive or your lying eyes?

This is not a state making sure you have car insurance which is perfectly appropriate and at your option; if you can't afford it or don't feel like you should be driving anymore, you don't have to get car insurance.

Do you understand that Health Care "Reform" is from the Federal Government and no one can opt out?

That's a key here and I'm not sure you understand that.

This is the formerly limited Federal Government directing and dictating all human activity for ALL its citizens in all 50 states

 

[CrusaderFrank]

By forcing a woman to get insurance, they can control the means in which is administered and she has no recourse because she must have health insurance. So if they tell her to abort her child, she must. If she must carry the child to term, she must.

This is nonsensical.

Sure it is, but that's why Progressives love it.

 

[Greenbeard]

Do you understand that Health Care "Reform" is from the Federal Government and no one can opt out?

You mean besides entire states, of course.