So supporting the president now make us traitors? Oh I see, it's because it's not your guy in the white house that any support of him is now viewed as bad, and all your butt-hurt whining is somehow patriotic. Up is down, black is white, etc., etc.
12/31/2009 2:22:37 PM
The concept of giving everyone the benefits of health care is theft to you?
You keep using that word (Marxist). I don't think it means what you think it does.
12/31/2009 2:23:22 PM
Aaron's on a roll!
12/31/2009 2:24:20 PM
So when the government takes money to pay for healthcare its theft but when the government takes money to invade a foreign country to get its oil its not?
12/31/2009 2:35:43 PM
And just what is your definition of "liberty"?
12/31/2009 2:37:28 PM
I have to wonder, when these idiots use the words. "Marxist", "Communist", "Nazi", etc., do they even know what these terms actually mean? I fear that they do not.
12/31/2009 2:41:18 PM
Welfare for billionaires good
Welfare for the poor and sick bad
Yep, that was totally the message of Jesus. Not even Paul was this much of an asshole.
12/31/2009 2:45:09 PM
What would you be willing to bet that people like this who words such as "Marxist" and "Communist" couldn't even define what they actually mean?
12/31/2009 2:46:12 PM
A few years ago I read some Marx; what he actually said was a lot different than what I'd expected. You might be surprised. Of course I know you'll never read any of his writings. You guys don't seem to read much of anything.
12/31/2009 2:46:13 PM
I before E, except after C with some exceptions, like "atheist". Remember it!
12/31/2009 2:47:14 PM
Even though this is from a religious site, this is not fundie. How the hell did this get aproval.
12/31/2009 3:32:27 PM
If you support this measure knowing what it means, then it means you're a Marxist and theif. <sic>
Actually, the real thieves in the USA-style healthcare system are the insurance companies, who gouge ridiculous premiums out of their customers only to deny them benefits later.
If you really want to see a drop in healthcare costs take those greedy bastards out of the equation completely.
12/31/2009 3:46:24 PM
Do you support public schools?
Then you don't understand the concept of liberty. If you support public schools and you know what it means, then you're a Marxist and a thief.
Feel free to replace "public schools" with anything else funded by tax dollars that helps people: Firefighters, police forces, etc.
This isn't fundie, really. But it's stupid, so I guess it's halfway there.
12/31/2009 3:51:25 PM
Libertarian fundies generally follow the maxim that freedom only stops when it impinges on someone else's. Unfortunately, most of them utterly fail to realise - sometimes quite deliberately, I am sure - that in the complex, interconnected modern world, everything is influenced by everything else. According to this, their own definition, the so-called free-market is anything but; it's all very well claiming, Randroid-like, that unemployed people simply need to decide to work, and two hundred years ago you may just barely have been right, barring certain other impracticalities, but it simply doesn't work that way when the free market has, quite simply, reached global saturation and no longer has any direction to expand in, and thus there is no longer enough work to go around and little possibility of carving out a new niche to create jobs - there are no more frontiers, there is no wilderness left to colonise, the global resources have all been staked out.
In today's "free" market, if you've exercised your own capitalist, libertarian freedom to undercut competition, introduced more efficient machines and employed fewer people or whatever and produce a commodity for a lower price (whilst protecting your innovations with a patent, of course - making absolutely everything someone's exclusive property is a cornerstone of a lot of libertarian thought, after all), you've destroyed the market for anyone else whose skill is to make what you do, and in doing so destroyed their livelihood, and hence an important part of their freedom. To which the ultra-libertarian response is generally "Fuck them. I don't care, shouldn't have to and you can't make me." although usually phrased more evasively.
And, if you couldn't be bothered to read all that, read this:
If you equate taxation, and the allocation of taxes to socially beneficial programmes, as theft, then you either don't live in a democracy (in which case you have my sympathy), or you've no fucking idea how democracy is supposed to work (in which case you don't).
12/31/2009 4:11:36 PM
Liberty: freedom to apply ad-hominems indiscriminately.
12/31/2009 4:34:14 PM
What's a theif?
Do not give the insurance compaines any more money! Keep it inside the government instead. The govenment is yours, and that is your money. The insurance companies should not get rich on you not getting the health care you need, because it's "too expensive".
Getting insurance companies rich is not something Karl Marx would have condoned.
12/31/2009 4:46:22 PM
A Marxist and a theif? Wow! But I'm with Swede. What the hell is a theif?
12/31/2009 4:51:48 PM
Oh no! Not more health coverage!
12/31/2009 5:06:41 PM
I'm against it. Then again, I am almost an anarchist...
And not a fundie.
12/31/2009 5:25:51 PM
As someone who lives in a country with both public and private health care, I cannot see why you would be against the possibility of a public system to supplement the private. Could you please tell me your reasons for such a choice?
12/31/2009 5:49:58 PM
12/31/2009 5:50:50 PM
you support this measure knowing what it means, then it means you're a Marxist and theif.
At least I know how to spell.
12/31/2009 6:05:03 PM
Cause Jesus never said anything about love and compassion, nothing about giving to the needy, or "selling all you own" and living communally, now, did he....
12/31/2009 6:07:12 PM
Ehh.. I can actually sympathize with this view in a way. At the risk of sounding fundie...
The so-called reform really isn't. They aren't creating socialized health care, nor are they forcing the insurance companies to get rid of high premiums, deductibles, co-insurance or any of the other crap that causes people to not be able to afford health care. All they are doing is making it mandatory to have insurance. Forcing people to pay for a service provided by a private industry, which is not currently required to abide by any regulation, is hardly capitalism.
Unless the government fixes the corruption and other problems in the insurance industry, then all it's doing is turning itself into a leg-breaker for the insurance companies' protection racket. "If I wuz you, I'd pay da man, if ya knows what's good for ya!"
Trust me. I'm from Massachusetts and, after insurance became manditory, my company insurance went down the tubes. I'm sure some of it was due to the company wanting to cut costs, but once the insurance companies knew that people had to get insurance, there was no reason for them to provide incentives to purchase it, and gave them license to set whatever rules they wanted.
12/31/2009 6:09:07 PM
I've always seen anything run by the government as just asking for trouble, besides, with this particular plan, not a lot of thought was put into it. Am I against universal health care as a whole? Not really, I mean, I do see it as a personal responsibility more than a right, however if it was in the hands of someone that we could trust [which, these days, seem to be no one] then I would definitely say go for it.
12/31/2009 6:37:21 PM