Then they came for us...

[SAT2]

Peacefully? You forgot the Civil War. The Civil War ended the founder's error of legalized ownership of other humans. Please drop your attendance at Glenn Beck University.

Hey dummy...the founders didn't cause slavery or the Civil War. PROGRESSIVES DID!

Your minor and isolated examples don't change the point. The founders debated slavery, and left it as legal. Therefore, the original USC was flawed. Women were not given the right to vote, nor were those who did not own property. More flaws. The founders were great men, but it's inappropriate to hold them up as perfect.

Slavery was not ended peacefully. It took a war. Southerners had no intention of ending slavery in their own time. They wanted it to be permanent.

 

[koshergrl]

It wasn't flawed. Slaves weren't recognized as men, but as animals. Sort of like pre-born babies aren't considered people, but tissue.

When idiots finally were forced to recognize the humanity of slaves and women, the Constitution served them well.

 

[JDzBrain]

It wasn't flawed. Slaves weren't recognized as men, but as animals. Sort of like pre-born babies aren't considered people, but tissue.

When idiots finally were forced to recognize the humanity of slaves and women, the Constitution served them well.

EXACTLY!!!

Those were INDIVIDUAL idiots.

And the founders put in place the language that made that possible...and NECESSARY as the social morays of the MAJORITY changed!

THAT is one of the few tenets of our government that actually does resemble a democracy. Just without the mob rule factor of a true democracy and made possible because we are a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC which delays change till a TRUE consensus is reached instead of the herky jerky reactionary-ism of a true democracy!

 

[dblack]

It does demand that you financially participate in a system that you're bound to use sooner or later. When the GOP proposed it, it was seen as personal responsibility.

So you prefer single payer?

Single payer would be better than the mandate. But freedom to decide for ourselves how to deal with our own health care would be better than both.

Anyway, ACA is one example of how liberal programs are actually very 'authoritarian' in their way. It's not the dictatorial, nationalistic authoritarianism of fascism, but it does use coercive state authority to mandate collective interests at the expends if individual rights.

The corporatism is a related, but different, matter, and a common tool of authoritarian states as well.

 

[SAT2]

It wasn't flawed. Slaves weren't recognized as men, but as animals. Sort of like pre-born babies aren't considered people, but tissue.

When idiots finally were forced to recognize the humanity of slaves and women, the Constitution served them well.

Oh, please. Black people were [wrongly] considered as lesser in intellect, but the founders understood that black people were human. You're pretending to believe that the founders lacked any understanding of science or of the laws of the rest of the world. Science, because the founders understood enough of science to know that it was not bestiality to have sex with enslaved black women, and that children are not born from men having sex with animals. And history, because the founders knew that other civilized nations did not have slavery.

We are not speaking of voting rights. We are speaking of slavery. It took the Civil War to end slavery. It took violence. Unfortunately.

 

[SAT2]

It does demand that you financially participate in a system that you're bound to use sooner or later. When the GOP proposed it, it was seen as personal responsibility.

So you prefer single payer?

Single payer would be better than the mandate. But freedom to decide for ourselves how to deal with our own health care would be better than both.

Anyway, ACA is one example of how liberal programs are actually very 'authoritarian' in their way. It's not the dictatorial, nationalistic authoritarianism of fascism, but it does use coercive state authority to mandate collective interests at the expends if individual rights.

The corporatism is a related, but different, matter, and a common tool of authoritarian states as well.

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.

 

[uscitizen]

Anyone who supported the Patriot Act and this "And then they came for us" stuff is full of crap.

Who here supported the Patriot Act?

It's exactly what the terrorists wanted.

Who supported the Patriot Act? Virtually all Republicans, many Democrats, and assorted others who were frightened and eager to give up their freedoms.

 

[dblack]

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 they 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.

 

[grunt11b]

When are they coming for the deadbeats and freeloaders?

The deadbeats and freeloaders will be the ones right along with them coming for the rest of us. It will be their new job "reward" for going along with the tyrannical regime.

 

[SAT2]

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

 

[dblack]

Really, they could easily have designed that?

Yes. Easily. It doesn't even really take much in the way of design. If they want to use federal money to help people, just send them a fucking check. But this isn't about helping people, never has been. Its about control, which is why they'll never choose a mode of solving problems that doesn't increase their own power first and foremost.

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'm familiar with the definition of 'authoritarianism'. I'm not making the point out federal government operates as an 'authoritarian' regime. I'm making the point that Democrats have a pronounced authoritarian bent. In the simplest terms, they like to boss people around. They justify it as being "for our own good", but in reality it serves the interest of powermongers and corporate lobbyists who dominate Washington.

 

[SAT2]

Really, they could easily have designed that?

Yes. Easily. It doesn't even really take much in the way of design. If they want to use federal money to help people, just send them a fucking check. But this isn't about helping people, never has been. Its about control, which is why they'll never choose a mode of solving problems that doesn't increase their own power first and foremost.

I watched the process...none of this was or could be easy.

It's not about controlling people. :roll It's about 1] health care for more citizens, and 2] cost controls.

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'm familiar with the definition of 'authoritarianism'. I'm not making the point out federal government operates as an 'authoritarian' regime. I'm making the point that Democrats have a pronounced authoritarian bent. In the simplest terms, they like to boss people around. They justify it as being "for our own good", but in reality it serves the interest of powermongers and corporate lobbyists who dominate Washington.

Yes, Democrats are real authoritarians.

 

[Big Fitz]

Your post made me laugh. Sorry. The right wingers on the board can only shout that progressives and liberals are like fascists. Once you ask them how, they can't begin to back it up, all they can do is start reciting what their talk radio masters have said.

and all we see you saying is "No, they're not! I won't believe any evidence I see!"

Soooo... who's shouting whom down without any intellectual reason to back it up?

From now on, your posts are only worth responding to in lolcat form.

You haven't posted any evidence. Just corny humor.

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

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

 

[Big Fitz]

And this is how you were taught to react when busted. I suggested that you use another tactic, now I'm telling you too.

More crazy. Are you this emotionally invested in the idea of "liberal fascism"?

Again, it's an authoritarian, nationalistic ideology. It's neither socialist, nor progressive. You've fallen for a disinformation campaign.

Crazy is using a tactic that you were advised not to use.

Advised? No. Aware of? Even less so. Capable of understanding? Not a chance.

 

[dblack]

I watched the process...none of this was or could be easy.

It's not about controlling people. :roll It's about 1] health care for more citizens, and 2] cost controls.

Cost controls?! Now you're the one playing for a belly laugh. ACA does exactly nothing about health care inflation. Arguably, almost certainly imo, it amplifies the major inflationary pressures currently at work in the health care market. And, again, if the goal was to provide health care for more people, we could do that far more directly then herding them into the insurance company pens.

Yes, Democrats are real authoritarians.

Yep. Every bit as much as their Republican brethren. They hide it behind a veneer of democracy and phony PC tolerance, but it when it comes right down to it, they are anything but tolerant when it comes to the real freedom of individuals to live their lives as they choose.

 

[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.

 

[SAT2]

I watched the process...none of this was or could be easy.

It's not about controlling people. :roll It's about 1] health care for more citizens, and 2] cost controls.

Cost controls?! Now you're the one playing for a belly laugh. ACA does exactly nothing about health care inflation. Arguably, almost certainly imo, it amplifies the major inflationary pressures currently at work in the health care market. And, again, if the goal was to provide health care for more people, we could do that far more directly then herding them into the insurance company pens.

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

Yep. Every bit as much as their Republican brethren. They hide it behind a veneer of democracy and phony PC tolerance, but it when it comes right down to it, they are anything but tolerant when it comes to the real freedom of individuals to live their lives as they choose.

Rhetoric. No substance. Fail.

 

[Uncensored2008]

wal-mart would be a good place to start. Most people who work for wal mart are forced on the social safety net because they refuse to pay a living wage.

What a steaming pile of shit.

Why do you leftist lie about everything? Seriously, if you have a legitimate point, why do you lie?

 

[dblack]

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

Rhetoric. No substance. Fail.

Agreed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Every American who understands the meaning of the Constitution and the rule of law.

That leaves you out.

Of course the best strategy is to keep things from getting that bad, and not allowing the judiciary to be corrupted and co-opted as during the Nazi regime. The best way to accomplish that is keeping republicans out of the WH.

Maybe you can declare Obama president for life like Hugo?

lol - Anyone who believes such nonsense merely exhibits his ignorance.

Right - a centrally planned economy where the state controls the means of production is "capitalist!"

LOL

There two possibilities with leftists, they are fucking morons, or they are liars.