44 Responses to “The health care debacle”

1. Parsifal // Mar 24, 2010 at 10:42 pm

   If this country can lawfully conscript its citizens into the military — and it has multiple times since the Civil War — it can certainly lawfully require its citizens to have health insurance, which is a dramatically lower level of intrusion into their lives than conscription. To assert, as some have, that health care is somehow unconstitutional when enforced military service — particularly in times of peace, such as the 1950s — is not, is an assertion that beggars logic and plain sense.

   When Democrats and liberals lose, they sulk and threaten to move to Canada. When Republicans and right-wingers lose, they go apoplectic, shout homophobic and racial slurs, warn that they’re getting their guns out and cleaning them, and issue death threats against Democratic legislators.

   Two whole different styles of opposition.

2. Mike // Mar 25, 2010 at 12:19 am

   We have a draft?

   That’s news to me. I thought we had a voluntary military these days.

   But I don’t want to be seen as being in competition with your point. I don’t support the idea of a draft either.

   You have the right to life and liberty. The government does NOT have the freedom to force you to give up your liberty to serve in the totalitarian military structure, nor does it have the freedom to force you to give up your life in war.

   That it did so in the past doesn’t make it right, nor legal. If that logic held, we would still have slavery.

   I’d prefer that the people who sign the Declarations of War should lead the troops into battle personally. Kings who did so were a lot less likely to launch wars for petty reasons.

3. Jeffrey Maryak // Mar 25, 2010 at 2:58 am

   @ Parsifal

   There was no war in the 1950s? I’m sure the Korean War veterans might disagree but that is not germane to your point. I agree with Mike that conscription is decidedly un-American in its relation to freedom and liberty. I would argue that physical invasion is a bit different than the threat of a heart attack or whatever else this bill is protecting us from.

   As for how Democrats or liberals lose versus conservatives and Republicans…I completely disagree. Would you say that the 8 years of Bush’s presidency was marked by people who were moping and sulking or were there thoroughly batshit incensed? I seem to remember the left becoming unhinged at whatever Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld did. In fact, mentioning their name can set people off. So no. I don’t agree that liberal just peacably go off and sulk and right wingers go apoplectic…both sides go nuts…as they should.

4. Parsifal // Mar 25, 2010 at 11:06 am

   “We have a draft? That’s news to me. I thought we had a voluntary military these days.”
   I clearly stated that we HAD a draft in the past. Don’t be a dilbert; your comment is completely off the issue at hand. The reference to the draft was to show what the government lawfully can do. I didn’t say I agree with it, merely that the draft is a far more drastic intrusion on one’s life than health insurance.

   “There was no war in the 1950s? I’m sure the Korean War veterans might disagree”
   Of course there was a war in the 1950s, officially from 25 June 1950 to 27 July 1953 (and, officially, it has never ended; it is still “on”). Few people know as much about it as I do. I wrote a book about it. A family member died as a prisoner of war in 1951. My reference, obviously, was to the years of relative peace from the mid-1950s to the early 1960s when we nevertheless had a draft.

   “As for how Democrats or liberals lose versus conservatives and Republicans…I completely disagree.”
   Really? No one then called up Republican legislators and threatened them with death. No one said they were getting their guns out, so you Republicans had better watch out. No one spit on Republican legislators and called them filthy names.No one hated their own government so much that they called for a revolution — in other words, for its overthrow (which is only a few steps away from being, under the U.S. Constitution, treason).

   If you grasp at straws to construct an argument, what you will build instead is . . . a house of straws.

5. Mike // Mar 25, 2010 at 5:35 pm

   @ Parsifal

   So you disagree with the draft, but use the premise to justify health care?

   That makes zero sense.

   Does it matter if someone hits you once or beats you half to death? Aren’t both cases of assault?

6. Parsifal // Mar 25, 2010 at 7:09 pm

   I said nothing about agreeing or disagreeing with the draft — my remark was neutral on the issue — so you could not draw that conclusion. Thus your conclusion makes zero sense. As it happens, I believe the draft may at times be necessary, despite its openness to misuse or abuse. But that can be said about many things in life. Nothing is pure, not even libertarianism.

   What your second comment has to do with anything defies understanding, especially anything under discussion here. So I can only reply to the legal aspects. Both are cases of assault, but the first, a single blow, would typically receive a lesser sentence than the second, a beating nigh unto death.

7. Jeffrey Maryak // Mar 26, 2010 at 2:41 am

   Your comment about how unhinged the right becomes did not answer the point. Which was that the left becomes decidedly as unhinged as the right. Yes they make death threats. Yes they spit. Yes they become unglued. I don’t see either side as being particularly “special”.

8. Parsifal // Mar 26, 2010 at 11:42 am

   Actually, it did answer the point, and quite well. You commit the typical American mistake of cultural relativism, in this case applied to politics — seeing one thing as good as (or as bad as) another. The impulse behind it is admirable, in and of itself — wanting not to be, or to be seen to be, prejudiced. But ultimately it is unhelpful, because usually one thing IS better than another. “A plague on both your houses” is applicable only when both houses are plaguey, but in contemporary American politics they are not. Demonstratively the right-wing — Republicans, Tea Partyers, and other reactionaries — are committing the awful stuff we see. It is even worse because the official Republican Party silently supports it by refusing to condemn it.

   Paul Krugman’s column today captures the history well:
   “Democrats had a lot of harsh things to say about former President George W. Bush — but you’ll search in vain for anything comparably menacing, anything that even hinted at an appeal to violence, from members of Congress, let alone senior party officials.
   “No, to find anything like what we’re seeing now you have to go back to the last time a Democrat was president. Like President Obama, Bill Clinton faced a G.O.P. that denied his legitimacy — Dick Armey, the second-ranking House Republican (and now a Tea Party leader) referred to him as “YOUR president.” Threats were common: President Clinton, declared Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, ‘better watch out if he comes down here. He’d better have a bodyguard.’ (Helms later expressed regrets over the remark — but only after a media firestorm.) And once they controlled Congress, Republicans tried to govern as if they held the White House, too, eventually shutting down the federal government in an attempt to bully Mr. Clinton into submission.”

   When liberals don’t like something, they talk you into somnolence. When right-wingers don’t like something, they talk about getting out their guns.

9. Michael Cade // Mar 26, 2010 at 3:43 pm

   @Parsifal, I always appreciate your comments. They are usually well-argued and articulate. I like that you keep us libertarians, quasi-libertarians, political agnostics and androgynes on our toes. But…this…

   “When liberals don’t like something, they talk you into somnolence. When right-wingers don’t like something, they talk about getting out their guns.”

   I’m sorry, but that’s complete bullshit.

   I’ll grant you that some things in life are inarguably right. Science gives us tools to detect empirical proof to validate such assertions. For instance, evolution is a fact. Science validates this, regardless of what creationists might say.

   Politics has much more wiggle room for error, idiocy and flat-out insanity though. Jeffrey Mayak is 1000% correct. All political entities have their brute-thug elements. To posit that the left does not suggests you live in a hermetically sealed pod somewhere far away from reality.

   A brief brainstorm session (2 minutes total?) was all it took for me to come up with several examples of leftist thuggery.

   *Animal rights activists leaving Molotov cocktails on a scientist’s doorstep

   *Ann Coulter threatened for…giving a speech…?

   *”Progressive” American Federation of Labor unions BANNING blacks until a law in the 1960s put a stop to it

   *Anti-racists plotting ways to attack conspiracy maniac David Icke because they think his crazed views on “lizard people” are metaphors for antisemitism (they’re not, btw. Icke is merely nuts and really does believe that lizard people run the world)

   *I seem to recall a certain unkempt UNABOMBER with more than a few wacky leftist views, um, killing people in the 1990s

   *Here in Portland, a faction of the ever-benevolent Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice group (SHARPS) violently ambushed writer Jim Goad outside a music club

   *The Earth Liberation Front is another commendable group of gentle, leftist souls in the Pacific Northwest who enjoy destroying radio towers (among many other things)

   *The Sterling Hall bombing at the University of Wisconsin-Madison ended with the death of a UW physicist and injuries to three others

   I could go on like this for hours.

   I’ve included some relevant links here because multiple links on WFTC comments are interpreted as spam:

   http://bit.ly/bf84cD

   …Enjoy…?

10. Parsifal // Mar 26, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    Well said. But I would expect nothing less of an ex-Badger once under the influence of the Norbertines. I could argue with it, but I’ve pushed this button too many times and the elevator doesn’t come to my floor. Instead, I’ll shift the emphasis but not the topic by posting the following, which was sent me by a right-wing friend — one appreciates one’s friends for other things than their political views — because I can agree with just about all of it:

    Congressional Reform Act of 2010

    1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

    A. Two Six year Senate terms
    B. Six Two year House terms
    C. One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
    envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to
    work.

    2. No Tenure / No Pension:

    A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when
    they are out of office.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
    envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to
    work.

    3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:

    All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security
    system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system,
    Congress participates with the American people.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
    envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back to
    work.

    4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
    envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to
    work.

    5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will
    rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
    envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to
    work.

    6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same
    health care system as the American people.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
    envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to
    work.

    7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.

    Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
    envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to
    work.

    8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/2011 .

    The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen
    made all these contracts for themselves.

11. Michael Cade // Mar 26, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    Addendum:

    Oops, Jeffrey MARYAK (sorry for the misspelling).

    One other thought:

    Parsifal, I’ll give you a real, bona-fide example of cultural relativism:

    “Multicultural” lefties who act as apologists for militant Islam.

    If I were to play the same rhetorical games that the left does in racially centered arguments, I could say something like this (which author Sam Harris already has, btw, to great effect):

    “Islamic women and children are the biggest victims of that religion. Therefore, anyone who condones the behavior of militant Islam is racist and sexist, because he or she does not openly disapprove of Islam’s barbarism.”

    I could go even further and say that these apologists should be ashamed of themselves.

12. Scott Stein // Mar 26, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    Just a clarification: WFTC does not filter comments with two or more links as spam. It does hold them for moderation. These comments are approved as soon as possible. That can mean within minutes when I am at a computer or within hours when I am not or am asleep for the night. Or, in rare cases when I do not have access to a computer, within a couple of days. Comments with multiple links are moderated to prevent the site being swamped by robot spam. Maybe I’ll up the number of allowable links before they are moderated, though, since the robots usually put a lot more than two links in and our spam filter usually catches them anyway.

13. Jeffrey Maryak // Mar 26, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    No problem Mike. I don’t mind. As I sit here in Charles De Gaulle airport in Paris, awaiting my flight to Africa, I read that I have been accused of cultural relativism. I looked up exactly what cultural relativism means and it only applies narrowly but it is apparently a classic American mistake.

    I am accused of this “sin” because I think that the bat-shit crazy right wingers are just as bat-shit and crazy as the left wingers. I think Mike has adequately argued the left is every bit as bat-shit crazy as the right.

    But as for the shiny object thrown in the room…term limits…I agree. While there is something to be said for understanding how the beltway works…it is not enough to warrant the career politicians we have now. How about a one term, 6 year length, Presidency? No reason to exempt the big guy if Congress is getting a good ass whuppin.

14. Jeffrey Maryak // Mar 26, 2010 at 4:36 pm

    And for the record, I like your posts too Parsifal…however wrong they are. :)

15. Jeffrey Maryak // Mar 26, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    And thank you Scott for being an omnipresent prophet.

16. Andrew Breslin // Mar 26, 2010 at 11:16 pm

    Regarding the exchange about whether the “left” or the “right” is more violent:

    First of all, the terms “left” and “right” are hardly sufficient to describe the vast array of viewpoints in this land. How to categorize atheist libertarians in favor of open borders, gay marriage, repeal of environmental regulations and legalized marijuana? They probably wouldn’t be chummy with the Christian fundamentalists generally described as on the right, nor the pot-smoking organic gardening hippies on the left though they share views with both camps.

    With all due respect, the fringe groups of extremists described by Mr. Cade hardly constitute the mainstream of those who would describe themselves as on the left.

    One example given was that of animal rights activists leaving molotov cocktails. You may be surprised to learn that polls conducting among animal activists show the breakdown of traditionally liberal/conservative views to be approximately the same as within the general population.

    (Note: demographics may have changed since I was immersed in this, but that was the case a decade or so back.)

    I used to work in for an animal rights organization. The guy in the mail-room listened to Rush Limbaugh. He was married to the president of the organization. One of the largest animal rights organizations in the country, The Fund for Animals, was founded by ultra-right winger Cleveland Amory, who I can personally attest, was an asshole, and an extremely conservative one. He used to say outrageously sexist things and was a huge Reagan supporter.

    Those polls I mentioned described the mainstream of the animal rights movement. The views of the people who actually blow things up may be different. And having met many of these people, I’d describe them as having far more in common with libertarians than any other recognizable political philosophy. The same is true of many Earth-firsters. A common theme with them is that the government is the enemy. I know several people who have committed acts of vandalism (not violence) in the name of their cause. None of them were Republicans. None of them were Democrats. They all described themselves as either anarchists or libertarians.

    And as far as animal people go, I’m not sure a more insular movement exists. Some of them care about other issues, sure, but they mostly just care about animals. During all the bruhaha over healthcare, with the international spotlight of the world on it, most of the ones I know were putting their energies into promoting the new vegan bakery down the street or rescuing abandoned crickets and whatnot.

    Citing a disparate litany of crackpots (who are united more by their disdain for government than anything else) is hardly evidence that the “left” is as violent as the “right.”

    The mainstream left, as represented by the Democratic party and the Obama administration made healthcare reform their priority, and the mainstream right made opposing it theirs. In the wake of the latter’s failure, and as a direct result thereof, there have been a spate of death threats and Democratic offices being vandalized. If Republicans received a similar level of death threats and vandalism after Scott Brown’s election, for example, I haven’t heard about it, but it’s hardly fair to suggest that the two camps are equal because some militant vegan anarchist somewhere lobbed a bomb at a lab.

17. Parsifal // Mar 26, 2010 at 11:49 pm

    Exactly. When I replied to Michael Cade’s list of supposed liberal violence-mongers by saying that “I could argue with it,” what I meant is pretty much along the lines of what Andrew Breslin says here. But I just couldn’t work up the enthusiasm for expounding on it in the face of willful ignorance. The Unabomber, for example, was simply not in any way connected to mainstream liberalism or the Democratic Party the way Tea Partiers and even some militia groups are hard-core conservative or otherwise right-wing, many of whom find solace and succor in the Republican Party.

18. Andrew Breslin // Mar 26, 2010 at 11:56 pm

    P.S. I also think that if the “left” is expected to take responsibility for any violent action by SHARPS, then it is only fair that the “right” take responsibility for any violent action in favor of racial prejudice. Their inclusion in your list implies that they oppose something the mainstream right supports. I haven’t looked up the figures, but I’m pretty sure a century and a half of lynchings probably outnumber violent attacks by SHARPS by at least a little bit.

19. Parsifal // Mar 27, 2010 at 11:34 am

    And then there is the grim satisfaction, if not outright glee (masked by phony expressions of disapproval), shown by right-wingers when some nutball executes a doctor who performs abortions. “Oh, it’s reprehensible” (“but no more than he deserved”). The Republican Party cannot disavow its close association with violent people like that (and their supporters). The “big tent” that Republicans said they wanted to be shelters them.

20. Mike // Mar 27, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    @ Everyone in the “Who is more violent” discussion:

    My point, which I may not have made as clearly as I wished, was to point out that I’m not attacking anyone. I’m living a quiet life, harming no one, taking nothing, and generally trying to be as out of the way as possible.

    I merely ask that those who have different political views leave me in peace to live my life as I see fit. That whole individual freedom to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” bit, ya know?

    I’m happy with my health care setup. I don’t want to have this socialized system governing my decisions. I don’t want politicians and bureaucrats in DC dictating unto me how I may live my life.

    And I don’t want them doing the same to any of you either.

    If you want to get an abortion, have at it. If you want to smoke a joint, roll ‘er up. If you want to own 4000 guns, stockpile.

    Just please, respect my right to feel differently, and refrain from forcing your morality on me. That’s all I ask.

    I don’t care which batch of crazies is causing the most ruckus today, tomorrow, or yesterday. Do what you like, just leave me out of it.

    That’s the essence of America.

21. Parsifal // Mar 27, 2010 at 7:26 pm

    Thus spake Republicans:

    Rep. Michele Bachmann: “I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous…. having a revolution every now and then is a good thing.”

    Rep. John Boehner: “Take [Democratic Congressman] Steve Driehaus, for example. He may be a dead man. He can’t go home to the west side of Cincinnati.”

    Rep. Steve King: “Let’s beat that other side to a pulp! Let’s take them out. Let’s chase them down.”

    This is the language of violence, of a party purple with rage that the “wrong” side won and cannot allow it to stand. Whether it encourages violence I cannot say for certain – though I think it does – but at any rate it does nothing to discourage it. It says violence is OK.

22. Mike // Mar 27, 2010 at 8:57 pm

    @ Parsifal

    You do understand that the 2nd Amendment exists for a reason, correct?

    That America wouldn’t exist without angry people who engaged in armed conflict?

    Not that I’m advocating those actions, mind you. There is still an awful lot of civil disobiedence we can use before grabbing up the guns.

    My personal favorite is probably a national strike, but I always did prefer Galt to Danneskjold…

    The tax payers are the ones who truly control the purse strings. If they ever decide to stop buying things, to stop working, the system comes to a halt.

    But I am upset that we’re in a situation where we’re even having to discuss these things. The politicians, on both sides of the aisle, have done this country a great disservice.

23. Parsifal // Mar 27, 2010 at 10:10 pm

    Yes, I do know the 2nd Amendment exists for a reason. We’ve spent most of the last 220-plus years arguing among ourselves what that reason is and not come up with a definitive answer.

    “That America wouldn’t exist without angry people who engaged in armed conflict?”

    Is that what you believe it has come to, that angry people should engage in armed conflict against their own country? Why? Do they hate their country? Whom should they shoot first?

    There is not a rush on the gun stores when Republicans gain power, only when the Democrats do. Does that mean Democrats think politics and governance can be practiced peaceably and Republicans and right-wingers don’t? Or does it mean Republicans and right=wingers fear their country and Democrats don’t?

24. Mike // Mar 27, 2010 at 10:33 pm

    @ Parsifal

    1) Really?

    I’d have figured that the Civil War was the result of people finding a reason for it…

    2) No, I don’t believe that angry people should be involved in armed conflict inside their own country. No habla ingles?

    “But I am upset that we’re in a situation where we’re even having to discuss these things. The politicians, on both sides of the aisle, have done this country a great disservice.”

    3) No. It means that Democrats are more widely viewed as being against the 2nd Amendment, and that we think they’re going to be the ones who try to round up all the nation’s firearms, or tax the ability to purchase them out of existence.

    Pretty easy.

    Final thought: Why do you dodge a discussion about why I shouldn’t be left alone if I’m harming no one, and asking for no help?

    I mention my freedom to personal liberty and your response is “Look at all the violent talk out of Republicans!!!!” What you’re proclaiming, loudly and often, has absolutely nothing to do with what I’m trying to say with this post.

    Hard to argue about the topic when the topic points out that you’re actively supporting an embryonic, totalitarian regime’s actions that violate the Constitution and the foundation of America?

    Punishing people for doing nothing… Yep, it’s really “The land of the free” these days…

25. Parsifal // Mar 27, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    OK: I’ll bite. I wish everyone would leave you alone and no one would give you any help.

26. Andrew Breslin // Mar 28, 2010 at 10:14 am

    Mike,

    I don’t think anyone is “dodging” a discussion with you. People are interested in discussing things that are new and interesting. You are a libertarian. Most of what you said can be summed up with that statement. We all know what libertarians believe. We all know their stance on abortion, guns, drug legalization, etc. I agree with quite a lot of it.

    You state:

    >>I’m one of the few individuals out there who is truly pro-choice<<

    And then go on to describe some textbook examples of libertarian ideas. But you aren’t “one of the few.” I’m pretty sure there are several million of you out there. Your libertarian stance is not unique or original. I’m *not* stating that these ideas are wrong, (I agree with much of what you say) but libertarianism isn’t a radical new concept that we’ve never heard of before.

    What is new and interesting is your penultimate comment (right before the bit about the flaming dog poop). The one about massive civil unrest. That is the point that Parsifal picked up on with his initial reply.

    My own views are pretty complex, but there are certainly some libertarian ideas mixed into it. One of them is that other people have the right to their own ideas even if they disagree with mine. And a related idea is that they should not commit acts of violence against people with different points of view. Parsifal’s original reply to your comment concerned this.

    Another view that I hold is that people should discuss their differences of viewpoint, and try to understand one another and–this part is key–they should acknowledge reality. Setting aside the issue itself: If people really want to deny that the level of rancor and violence and vitriol from the right in the wake of healthcare reform far exceeds anything we’ve seen on the left in response to their own political failures, then I don’t see why anyone even bothers to try to have a conversation.

27. Parsifal // Mar 28, 2010 at 4:14 pm

    The Democrats can only hope and pray that the GOWPP (Grand Old White Peoples Party) and the Tea-Baggers and other assorted right-wingers associated with the party make repeal of health-care reform their mantra in November and in 2012. In 1936 Alf Landon similarly built his campaign on repeal of the newly enacted Social Security and it won him two states, Maine and Vermont.

    It is perverse that people should call the bill socialized medicine and a government takeover when it resembles in most respects the compulsory insurance law enacted in Massachusetts by then-Gov. Mitt Romney, than whom no one is more Republican. It should be a boon to free enterprise — if you want to consider insurance companies free enterprise, though I think that is not entirely accurate — in pushing 30-plus million new customers into the arms of the insurance companies.

    As for the Tea-Baggers, their rage is very likely to die down when the economy (and therewith the supply of jobs) improves and unemployment diminishes. Paychecks as much as principle are at the root of this particular madness.

28. Mike // Mar 28, 2010 at 8:19 pm

    @ Mr. Breslin

    Parsifal, like most other liberals I talk to, only wants to discuss the effect (50% of the country being totally pissed off), and not the cause (the Democrats wiping their arse with the US Constitution).

    It’s a strawman tactic employed to keep from admitting that there is a reason for the anger on the right, and that the reason is justifiable.

    AND

    If I say that I’m part “of the few”, and you comment that several million people believe like I do, my obvious retort is going to be _________?

    A: Several million people is a drop in the bucket when compared to a world wide population of 6 or 7 billion.

    @ Parsifal

    LOL @ the thought that this is going to fix the economy and bring productive jobs back to the country.

    Because it’s worked so well at saving the Mass. economy, or those of Europe!

    Hahahahahahahaha

29. Andrew Breslin // Mar 28, 2010 at 9:27 pm

    As you have mentioned, Mike, this is a highly divisive issue causing massive civil unrest. Let’s take a look at some other divisive issues in the last half century:

    Issue: Civil rights movement:

    Summary of conflict: liberals wish to extend rights to racial minorities. Conservatives are opposed.

    Outcome: Conservatives lose.

    Massive civil unrest?: you betcha!

    Issue: 2000 election

    Summary of conflict: incredibly close election between George Bush and Al Gore.

    Outcome: conservatives win

    Massive civil unrest?: No. Liberals promise to move to Canada but eventually just sulk and drink a lot.

    Issue: War in Iraq

    Summary of conflict: War sold to people on the basis of alleged WMDs which turn out to not exist.

    Massive Civil unrest?: no. Several big protests in DC. Lots of indignant ire and outrage, but little violence. The Daily Show has a lot of fun with it. Liberals eventually get tired of going to protests and watch TV instead.

    Representatives spit on?: not that I’m aware.

    N-word used? probably not

    Issue: healthcare reform

    summary: liberals want more government regulation of healthcare industry. Conservatives opposed.

    Outcome: conservatives lose

    Massive civil unrest?: and how!

    This is hardly the first time that 50% of the people are pissed off about something. Half the people in the country were pissed off about the 2000 election, rest assured. They were livid about it. They were appalled. They were disgusted and outraged. But did they start attacking Republican offices, sending death threats, and spitting on Congressmen? They did not.

    There have been many divisive issues that have challenged our nation, but it’s only when conservatives lose these political fights that what was a divisive issue transforms into massive civil unrest.

    ……………………..

    Regarding comparing the health care systems of other countries to ours: you’ve mentioned a generalized disdain for the continent of Europe. What other country in the world has a system in place that you admire? I’m sure you would be quick to say that the USA before reform was the BEST. (USA!!! USA!!!) But now that we’ve become, in your mind, a socialist quagmire, what country has the best system now? Or if we’re still # 1, albeit slipping, what country is # 2?

30. Parsifal // Mar 28, 2010 at 9:30 pm

    @ Mike

    Oscar Wilde said, “A cynic is a person who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.” If your views are anything to judge the entire political philosophy by, we can change “cynic” to “libertarian.”

31. Mike // Mar 29, 2010 at 7:34 am

    @ Andrew

    Ahem.

    Compare the TEA Party rallies to the anti-war protests, or the G-8 protests. Which ones were less violent? Which ones resulted in fewer arrests? Which ones caused less damage to private property?

    Tell me: When was the last time conservatives shouted someone out of town, like the liberals did to Ann Coulter last week? (Not that I’m defending Ann Coulter, but hey, freedom of speech)

    Even in this debacle, conservatives smashed a couple of windows with rocks, liberals start taking pot shots with guns at Rep. Cantor’s office.

    How many conservatives joined the rioting in LA in the early 1990s?

    As I think Mr. Cade mentioned: Unabomber, conservative or liberal?

    Here’s another one: Lee Harvey Oswald. Conservative or liberal?

    And let’s just be real for a second: Stalin, Mao, Che. Peaceful, gentle liberals who never harmed another living soul, right?

    Pt 2

    Well, we still have the best health care system, but only because the new law is so new. Let our health care system degenerate to that of Cuba’s, or maybe Britain’s, and we’ll begin talking about how great it is in New Zealand, which has a taxpayer funded system, but also supports a large number of private insurance policies because the people with private insurance don’t have to wait for treatment (1).

    @ Parsifal

    I know the value of freedom of choice. It’s worth a LOT more to me than some bum on the corner’s health care costs.

    Maybe you should listen to Thomas Jefferson a bit more?

    “It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

    This linking arms, kum-ba-yah socialist BS needs the government. Capitalism made this the world’s greatest country without the overlords in DC handing out their dictates.

    Here’s a question of price v value for ya:

    SSI, Medicare, and Medicaid are bankrupting our federal and state governments. We’ve just decided to combat that problem by creating an even newer, BIGGER entitlement. Now, is the price of this entitlement (massive) worth it when the system collapses under its weight? Where is the value in that?

    1- http://www.emigratenz.org/healthcare-migrants-newzealand.html

32. Scott Stein // Mar 29, 2010 at 9:09 am

    A brick was thrown through a GOP office window.

33. Andrew Breslin // Mar 29, 2010 at 10:27 am

    >Compare the TEA Party rallies to the anti-war protests, or the G-8 protests. Which ones were less violent?

    The G-8 protests weren’t supporting anything remotely close to the agenda of the mainstream left. If you called those protesters liberals, they’d be insulted. Go ahead and actually talk to those people. See how long it takes before they give you some variant of “there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans!” I’m guessing less than five minutes.

    >>How many conservatives joined the rioting in LA in the early 1990s?

    And this rioting was supported and egged on by the mainstream left and Democratic party leaders, was it? News to me! Wow, you are actually suggesting that what appeared to be a random spontaneous riot was in some way orchestrated and planned by Democrats because in some unfathomable way it would advance their cause. Because massive property destruction is right up there with healthcare and preserving Roe v Wade on the Democrat’s priority list.

    >>As I think Mr. Cade mentioned: Unabomber, conservative or liberal?

    Neither, actually. Radical nutjob in no way shape or form promoting the interest or positions of the Democratic party or the mainstream left.

    >>>Here’s another one: Lee Harvey Oswald. Conservative or liberal?

    Neither actually. Not only were his views and actions not in any way supported by the mainstream left and the Democratic party, you might be surprised to learn that he is accused of killing the most powerful Democrat in the world at the time.

    >>>>And let’s just be real for a second: Stalin, Mao, Che. Peaceful, gentle liberals who never harmed another living soul, right?

    No, they were communist despots, in no way shape or form affiliated with or supported by the mainstream American left or the Democratic party.

    As I stated before, citing a diverse litany of radical crackpots is not evidence that the mainstream left is as violent as the mainstream right. Not a single one of the examples you gave was remotely connected to the agenda of the mainstream left and, in most cases, has been in direct opposition to it (and in opposition to the agenda of the mainstream right, as well.)

    If I were to stoop to your level of argumentation, I could cite the actions of the KKK, and neo-nazis (and the actual Nazis for that matter) and pro-lifers blowing up abortion clinics and that guy in DC who shot the guard at the Holocaust museum, and a thousand other incidents from right-wing nutjobs. But I am not, because I recognize that they are not representative of the mainstream right and the Republican party. I have many problems with the Republican party, but I have never suggested that as a group they should be associated with the KKK and Adolph Hitler. But you seem to have no problem associating the “left” with Stalin and Mao.

    The violence in the wake of health care reform is directly connected to the agenda of the mainstream right. It’s not incidental random nutjobs just acting on their own on an agenda completely and totally unconnected with the mainstream right. The issue they are acting on is the primary focus of the Republican party, and they are being egged on and encouraged by party leaders.

    There is an interesting op-ed piece from the New York Times that elaborates some of the direct connections between recent outbreaks of violence and Republican party leaders.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/opinion/28rich.html

    The link you posted was interesting, Scott. I encourage everyone to read it. It describes acts of vandalism and threats of violence against both GOP and Democratic offices and Representatives (the latter being considerably more numerous, but all of them reprehensible). I’m going to go on record and condemn them all, on both sides. And I am going to commend the GOP chairwoman there in Albemarle county for her denunciation of violence. But I am going to condemn party leaders in the GOP even more strongly for implicitly and occasionally pretty damn explicitly supporting and encouraging it.

34. Michael Cade // Mar 29, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    @everyone

    Some interesting thoughts in these comments. But rather than respond in rapid-fire fashion with sound-bite arguments whenever I’m able steal a free moment during the course of my day, I’ll get a full-fledged WFTC post up soon.

    Two quick things, though:

    *It’s true that the Unabomber, as I’ve stated before on another thread, wasn’t “left,” per se, but a guy who dabbled in all sorts of weird trans-partisan rage. That’s something I’d like to elaborate on more in a blog post. Let me say this, though: whose name would be more likely to elicit derisive sneers in the polite company of a liberal cocktail party — the Unabomber or, say, Andrew Breitbart? I know what the answer would be here in Portland. I can’t speak for other parts of the country.

    *It’s also true (again, I’m no HCR expert, but this is my impression) that Obamacare seems to have used Romneycare as its prototype. This is interesting, because (i) Democrats are ecstatic about legislation that the repugnant Romney creature conceived and (ii) Republicans are enraged about legislation the repugnant Romney creature conceived.

    A many layered quilt this life…this dystopian shitscape, eh?

35. Mike // Mar 29, 2010 at 7:45 pm

    @ Andrew Breslin

    This is, as Mr. Cade has pointed out elsewhere on this site, turning into a “conservatives did this!”-“Liberals did this!” type of discussion. But you’ve made some glaring errors/omissions in your last response:

    1) Right wing, small government types of groups, by definition, don’t produce Hitlers, Stalins, Maos, Castros, etc. These are all men of the left, and their positions are openly left wing (pro-government).

    The Democrats have nationalized the banks (even though Bush was the figurehead in the TARP debacle), auto industries, and now health care and education (and we didn’t even debate education, it was stuck in at the last minute).

    How big a chunk of the nation’s economy do they need to nationalize BEFORE you admit that their agenda isn’t much different than those of the previous communist regimes the world over?

    2) KKK wasn’t Republican. They were Democrats. They HATED MLKJr. when that man said that we should all be equal in the eyes of the law but not opportunity.

    MLKJr. realized that Marxist “spread the wealth” doctrine is inherently racist (there is a group which is born with need but not ability) and rejected it. UNLIKE the Democrats of today, who LOVE identity politics.

    4) I’m one of those who claim that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. And there isn’t. Both are statist organizations, with Party, and not The People, as their chief concern.

    But unlike the anarchists who protest the G-8, I support the rule of law.

    And if you don’t support the rule of law, you support the rule of man’s whim.

    Which is quite a bit closer to the statist position than mine is, to be sure.

    (I explained all of this here, my very first post on WFTC: http://whenfallsthecoliseum.com/2009/12/02/one-guys-thoughts-on-libertarianism-pt1/ )

    5) Oswald was a communist who was upset that Kennedy hadn’t gone far enough to the left.

    6) The Unabomber wasn’t a small-government, free market kind of guy, which you’d know if you’d ever read his manifesto.

    7) I think that the Democrat Party has a larger population, per capita, of crazies and nutjobs than the Republican Party. I think that the Republican Party’s nut jobs are more focused though. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

    8) Again, none of this has anything whatsoever to do with the idea that I’m supposed to be a free man in a nation of free men, and the Democrats just put red hot pokers through the Constitution and the ideals of freedom by FORCING us at the point of a gun to join their collectivist jaunt into retardation.

    You’re arguing the strawman argument. =)

36. Parsifal // Mar 29, 2010 at 11:19 pm

    @ Mike

    1) Hitler was a right-wing as they come. You can go on believing tii the cows come home that the “Socialist” in National Socialist means he was a Socialist, but it doesn’t make it true. He used and was used by powerful arch-conservative corporate powers. Look it up in Richard Evans’ massive three-volume history of the Third Reich.

    2) Everything gets paid for one way or another. If you do not have universal health care, patients who cannot afford medical care go to emergency rooms or “free” clinics or other special medical units, the costs of which are passed on to the payers of private insurance or to one government or the other. it becomes (or, rather, IS) in fact a universal health care system, though non-system would be a better word, since it is pathetically inefficient and incredibly more expensive than a rational system would be.
    So, in that instance, the “price of freedom” is high. I marvel that you are so willing to pay it.

    3) When a state requires car owners to buy auto insurance, is it “FORCING us at the point of a gun to join their collectivist jaunt into retardation”? Or is there some mysterious, alchemical difference between a state requiring something and the federal government requiring? Just wondering. If there IS a difference, why don’t we just become 50 countries and save the trouble and all the arguments?

37. Mike McGowan // Mar 30, 2010 at 12:10 am

    @ Parsifal

    1) lol

    You, good sir, need to read up on Hitler…

    Here… Try to the Nazi Party Platform, for starters.

    http://users.stlcc.edu/rkalfus/PDFs/026.pdf

    Pay extra special attention to the statements under “Breaking the Servitude of Interest”…

    Hitler was most certainly not a small government conservative. On the political scale, he was as far to the 100% Big Government side as you can get. To argue otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.

    2) Everything gets paid for, one way or another?

    That’s your justification for taking the rightful property of one individual and giving it to another?

    What happens when we lose our AAA credit rating, the interest on our National Debt spikes, and we can’t pay for it any longer?

    That’s how democracy dies, Parsifal.

    3) You could choose to walk.

    They aren’t mandating insurance on bicycles, now are they?

    Haven’t jacked the premiums for insurance on a set of roller blades?

    Just checkin’, making sure that you still had choices….

    Hmmmm…

    Yep. Unlike the health care mandate, you have perfectly legal alternatives. Wonderful.

38. TT // Mar 30, 2010 at 6:00 am

    ” a century and a half of lynchings probably outnumber violent attacks by SHARPS by at least a little bit.”

    Lynchings, lynchings, lynchings.

    Twice as many American blacks murder each other every year than were murdered in total throughout the history of American lynching.

    8,000 or so black-on-black murders ever year compared to less than four thousand lynchings of blacks in American history. Oh, and a few thousand whites were lynched, too, but no one tends to care about that.

    Blacks also commit an estimated 65% or so of all yearly murders in America, and thousands of their victims are white, so I’d estimate they make up for the lynching stats every year or so.

39. TT // Mar 30, 2010 at 6:07 am

    And since we’re on the topic of “outnumbering,” I’ll see your Hitler and raise you Stalin and Mao, who piled up, oh, about 80 million more bodies than he did.

40. Parsifal // Mar 30, 2010 at 7:23 am

    @ Mike McGowan

    1) I’ll wager that I have read more books on German history, in German and English, than you have had hot dinners. Real books by real scholars, not flimsy fliers sent out over the Internet by nutball interest groups. Scholars of the Third Reich, British, German, and American, all say — and document — that Hitler was a flaming right-winger.
    The “Socialist” in “National Socialist” was as great a misnomer as “compassionate” in “compassionate conservatism.”

    2) Say you had a son. The thought of your reproducing is highly unsavory, but let’s say it anyway. And say that son got brain cancer. And say that your boss came in, the day before you learned of the brain cancer, and fired your ass and your health insurance with it. And say that you went to the hospital to get his brain cancer treated.
    What would the hospital say? It would say, “Sorry, Charlie — er, Mike. Only patients with health insurance get treated for brain cancer.”
    What would you do? Would you go to the emergency room? Where of course they cannot “fix” brain cancer? But would you go there, or some “free” clinic, in desperate attempt to find a way get the cancer treated? Or would you let your son die? After all, you could not justify “taking the rightful property of one individual and giving it to another?”
    Or would you try to get your son treated, regardless? That would be the decent thing to do. And in a decent society we would be glad to help you pay for it, all 310 million of us. Because the next time it might be us.

41. Mike // Mar 30, 2010 at 7:39 am

    @ Parsifal

    1) Books written by liberal college professors and liberal experts who want to link Hitler with the right wing in any way possible because it tarnishes their image?

    The same people that screwed the pooch with their Climategate antics and the same groups of “experts” who missed the financial collapse in 2008? Those people?

    Look, BY DEFINITION, he was part of the PRO-GOVERNMENT left wing.

    Duh. Hitler didn’t believe in small government, nor free markets.

    Hell, he even admitted that he was a socialist in Mein Kampf, but hey! Ignore Hitler’s own words and focus on revisionist history from a bunch of useless crackpots.

    “Society’s needs come before the individual’s needs.” — Hitler (1)

    I posted their Party platform, suggested you read it, and you respond with “I’ve read tons of stuff about Hitler!”…

    Well, I’ve read HITLER. Not what other people claim about Hitler, but Hitler’s own words. Amazing what you find when you read people’s own words…

    2) It’s really quite tasteless for you to sneer at the thought of me having a child simply because I make you look like an idiot in these comments threads. I’m a single father, and have been since my daughter was 1 year and 1 week old.

    I worked three jobs, went to grad school full time, and raised the kid by myself for years. These days, I work full time and raise the kid by myself. I’m an awesome father, and you can kiss my big white ass.

    As to the health care question?

    You do realize that private, non-forced charity takes care of those sob story situations?

    You do realize that those sob stories aren’t the problem, correct? That they don’t make up even a noticable number of people w/o insurance? And that the isolated cases of true rough luck are in no way, shape, form, nor fashion reason enough to violate the liberty of the other 300 million + Americans and destroy the entire health care system?

    One of these days, you left leaning lemmings are going to be extremely embarrassed that you supported this BS.

    1 – http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/adolf+hitler

42. Parsifal // Mar 30, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    Oh, gee, Mike. Did you also have to walk uphill both ways in a foot of snow every day to get to that grad school full-time? I hope when you got there you didn’t have to listen to the insane ravings of liberal professors. And to be a single parent, too! That’s unique in the history of humanity. I’ve never hear such a . . . such a . . . what did you call it? Oh, such a sob story before. The heart breaks.

    “Look, BY DEFINITION, he was part of the PRO-GOVERNMENT left wing.” By what definition? Whose definition? How could Hitler be pro- the government he tried for years to bring down? The left wing of what? How could he part of the “left wing” of right-wing governments, which is what the several governments increasingly were in the last years of the Weimar Republic?

    “Hitler didn’t believe in small government, nor free markets.” So what? What does that have to do with being right-wing? Francisco Franco didn’t believe in small government, either, and he was fanatically right wing. Whether Hitler believed in free markets is neither here nor there – he was not in any sense a theoretician on such matters – but free markets in every kind of merchandise flourished in the Third Reich. Hitler did not establish a state-run economy in, say, the type that existed in the Soviet Union.

    “Books written by liberal college professors and liberal experts . . . “ If you’re an expert, that means you know what you’re doing or saying. What difference does it make, then, if you’re liberal?

    “You do realize that those sob stories aren’t the problem, correct? That they don’t make up even a noticable number of people w/o insurance?” Forty-seven million Americans without health insurance is not a noticeable number? You don’t notice too good.

    I’ll take a pass on kissing your big white ass. I’ve seen your face, which is no treat and, I figure it would be pretty much the same.

43. TT // Mar 31, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    Wherever you’d like to pigeonhole Ted Kaczynski politically, it’s undeniable that he did not consider himself a leftist. The first (and best) part of his “Manifesto” is called “The Psychology of Modern Leftism,” and it’s highly critical of leftism.

44. Mike // Mar 31, 2010 at 8:23 pm

    @ TT

    I call him a kook, but if liberals want to try to play the “Look at all the conservative wackos” game, well, I’m not the kind of person who will let them play uncontested.

    The International Socialists (communists, Workers of the World Unite!”) were extremely critical of the National Socialists too.

    Doesn’t mean that they weren’t both left wing socialist movements.