Socialized Medicine

[old dogg]

Article deleted, links below

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
What concerns me most, however, is the harm that socialized defense will do to the nation's character. Socialized defense not only will be an economic and humanitarian disaster -- it will undermine the freedom, responsibility, and independence of ordinary Americans.
Socialized defense represents a giant leap beyond the major middle class entitlement program, Social Security. Social Security likewise promotes an unhealthy dependency on government (and unjustly taxes current workers to pay for older citizens' retirements), but at least it allows recipients to spend their retirement checks according to their own interests and priorities.

In sharp contrast, under a regime of socialized defense, a person's choice of self-defense, enemies, response to perceived threats-- even lifestyles -- will be controlled by the government. You think security firms are bureaucratic, impersonal, and non-responsive? Just wait until any politician creates a defense force for the entire United States! Furthermore, under Social Security, it is possible to maintain the fiction that each recipient has earned his or her payment. With socialized defense, on the other hand, the militarist nature of the program will be unavoidable. The result will be to spread across the nation as a whole the same demoralizing culture of war that afflicts the beneficiaries of the imperialist state.
As with all national programs, the real goal is to replace individual freedom and responsibility under the control of a political elite. Such a system of government inevitably produces subjects, not citizens.
If Americans still believe in the fundamental principles on which this country was founded -- liberty, self-reliance, and limited government -- they must resist the siren song of socialized defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you feel just as strongly with the FYP, too, right? If not, you're a hypocrite.

[bdk3clash]

Man, those stuffed shirts at right-wing think tanks and magazines keep ripping you off! First it was Kirk Johnson from the Heritage Foundation, and now it's Steven M. Warshawky of American Thinker.

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What concerns me most, however, is the harm that socialized defense will do to the nation's character. Socialized defense not only will be an economic and humanitarian disaster -- it will undermine the freedom, responsibility, and independence of ordinary Americans.
Socialized defense represents a giant leap beyond the major middle class entitlement program, Social Security. Social Security likewise promotes an unhealthy dependency on government (and unjustly taxes current workers to pay for older citizens' retirements), but at least it allows recipients to spend their retirement checks according to their own interests and priorities.

In sharp contrast, under a regime of socialized defense, a person's choice of self-defense, enemies, response to perceived threats-- even lifestyles -- will be controlled by the government. You think security firms are bureaucratic, impersonal, and non-responsive? Just wait until any politician creates a defense force for the entire United States! Furthermore, under Social Security, it is possible to maintain the fiction that each recipient has earned his or her payment. With socialized defense, on the other hand, the militarist nature of the program will be unavoidable. The result will be to spread across the nation as a whole the same demoralizing culture of war that afflicts the beneficiaries of the imperialist state.
As with all national programs, the real goal is to replace individual freedom and responsibility under the control of a political elite. Such a system of government inevitably produces subjects, not citizens.
If Americans still believe in the fundamental principles on which this country was founded -- liberty, self-reliance, and limited government -- they must resist the siren song of socialized defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you feel just as strongly with the FYP, too, right? If not, you're a hypocrite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kaj, no reason to put somebody on the defensive who is already well on the way to becoming a proponent of freedom.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
Man, those stuffed shirts at right-wing think tanks and magazines keep ripping you off! First it was Kirk Johnson from the Heritage Foundation, and now it's Steven M. Warshawky of American Thinker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Iron, 2 of these in a row has to be banworthy, no?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What concerns me most, however, is the harm that socialized defense will do to the nation's character. Socialized defense not only will be an economic and humanitarian disaster -- it will undermine the freedom, responsibility, and independence of ordinary Americans.
Socialized defense represents a giant leap beyond the major middle class entitlement program, Social Security. Social Security likewise promotes an unhealthy dependency on government (and unjustly taxes current workers to pay for older citizens' retirements), but at least it allows recipients to spend their retirement checks according to their own interests and priorities.

In sharp contrast, under a regime of socialized defense, a person's choice of self-defense, enemies, response to perceived threats-- even lifestyles -- will be controlled by the government. You think security firms are bureaucratic, impersonal, and non-responsive? Just wait until any politician creates a defense force for the entire United States! Furthermore, under Social Security, it is possible to maintain the fiction that each recipient has earned his or her payment. With socialized defense, on the other hand, the militarist nature of the program will be unavoidable. The result will be to spread across the nation as a whole the same demoralizing culture of war that afflicts the beneficiaries of the imperialist state.
As with all national programs, the real goal is to replace individual freedom and responsibility under the control of a political elite. Such a system of government inevitably produces subjects, not citizens.
If Americans still believe in the fundamental principles on which this country was founded -- liberty, self-reliance, and limited government -- they must resist the siren song of socialized defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you feel just as strongly with the FYP, too, right? If not, you're a hypocrite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kaj, no reason to put somebody on the defensive who is already well on the way to becoming a proponent of freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that was a joke.

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What concerns me most, however, is the harm that socialized defense will do to the nation's character. Socialized defense not only will be an economic and humanitarian disaster -- it will undermine the freedom, responsibility, and independence of ordinary Americans.
Socialized defense represents a giant leap beyond the major middle class entitlement program, Social Security. Social Security likewise promotes an unhealthy dependency on government (and unjustly taxes current workers to pay for older citizens' retirements), but at least it allows recipients to spend their retirement checks according to their own interests and priorities.

In sharp contrast, under a regime of socialized defense, a person's choice of self-defense, enemies, response to perceived threats-- even lifestyles -- will be controlled by the government. You think security firms are bureaucratic, impersonal, and non-responsive? Just wait until any politician creates a defense force for the entire United States! Furthermore, under Social Security, it is possible to maintain the fiction that each recipient has earned his or her payment. With socialized defense, on the other hand, the militarist nature of the program will be unavoidable. The result will be to spread across the nation as a whole the same demoralizing culture of war that afflicts the beneficiaries of the imperialist state.
As with all national programs, the real goal is to replace individual freedom and responsibility under the control of a political elite. Such a system of government inevitably produces subjects, not citizens.
If Americans still believe in the fundamental principles on which this country was founded -- liberty, self-reliance, and limited government -- they must resist the siren song of socialized defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you feel just as strongly with the FYP, too, right? If not, you're a hypocrite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kaj, no reason to put somebody on the defensive who is already well on the way to becoming a proponent of freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that was a joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops. I don't have enough social capital/forum reputation for my jokes to be clear yet do I? sigh... I suck at teh intrawebs.

[Archon_Wing]

[ QUOTE ]


Oops. I don't have enough social capital/forum reputation for my jokes to be clear yet do I? sigh... I suck at teh intrawebs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. In forums such as these, you have to be careful with humor. It's hard to see leveling because even very outlandish statements can be held by actual people. Even something like "Poker is the spawn of satan and poker players drink blood every night" might actually have people thinking I'm serious. Well, not necessarily 2p2, but perhaps on a politics forum elsewhere.

Or perhaps people are bad at the intrawebs <<--- So is internets < intrawebs?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What concerns me most, however, is the harm that socialized defense will do to the nation's character. Socialized defense not only will be an economic and humanitarian disaster -- it will undermine the freedom, responsibility, and independence of ordinary Americans.
Socialized defense represents a giant leap beyond the major middle class entitlement program, Social Security. Social Security likewise promotes an unhealthy dependency on government (and unjustly taxes current workers to pay for older citizens' retirements), but at least it allows recipients to spend their retirement checks according to their own interests and priorities.

In sharp contrast, under a regime of socialized defense, a person's choice of self-defense, enemies, response to perceived threats-- even lifestyles -- will be controlled by the government. You think security firms are bureaucratic, impersonal, and non-responsive? Just wait until any politician creates a defense force for the entire United States! Furthermore, under Social Security, it is possible to maintain the fiction that each recipient has earned his or her payment. With socialized defense, on the other hand, the militarist nature of the program will be unavoidable. The result will be to spread across the nation as a whole the same demoralizing culture of war that afflicts the beneficiaries of the imperialist state.
As with all national programs, the real goal is to replace individual freedom and responsibility under the control of a political elite. Such a system of government inevitably produces subjects, not citizens.
If Americans still believe in the fundamental principles on which this country was founded -- liberty, self-reliance, and limited government -- they must resist the siren song of socialized defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure you feel just as strongly with the FYP, too, right? If not, you're a hypocrite.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since health care can be administered one person at a time, but the country can only be defended as whole, your FYP is as asinine as the majority of your posts.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
but the country can only be defended as whole, your FYP is as asinine as the majority of your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Yeah, tell that to Switzerland.