-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
The Marine Hospital Service was an organization of hospitals dedicated to the care of ill and disabled seamen in the U.S. Merchant Marine, U.S. Coast Guard, and others. The Service was created by an act of the 5th Congress and signed into law on 16 July 1798 by President John Adams. The Marine Hospital Service was the point of origin for the Public Health Service.
The government funded the hospitals by a tax on sailors’ monthly wages.
Socialized medicine and mandatory health insurance in 1798.
The merchant seamen were essential to the early economy, and their job was dangerous. Realizing a healthy workforce was essential for our private merchant fleet to engage in foreign trade, the Congress acted. They created “An Act for The Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”.
There are some differences between then and now. The act did not mandate that sailors obtain any form of private insurance. It was a federal government run health insurance program, a public-option for sailors. The private insurance companies in 1798 hadn’t discovered lobbyists, that would come later.
H/T: Common-Place, Greg Sargent, Forbes.
you go Tootie
BIL
Not even Republicans support my version of the Constitution (which is also James Madison’s version). So I don’t know whose partisan propaganda you refer to unless you mean James Madison.
But undoubtedly your version of things is exactly the Democratic Party version of things. So I find it amusing that you accuse me of partisanship.
If Republicans did support my version of the Constitution, they would not have voted for the Drug Prescription benefit nor went to war with Iraq without a declaration.
Give it up.
Nice foaming irrational rant there, Tootles. The bad news is you still don’t know what you are talking about. However, since you choose to wallow in partisan propaganda fueled ignorance rather than correct it, I’m just going to sit back and laugh.
BIL
I was going to blow your confused comments off, but instead, I did this!
You wrote:
“No. My proper reading of the general welfare language produces the potential for power as restrained by the rest of the Constitution.”
Where is the potential power for GW to produce Obamacare? PROVE IT. You are just inventing stuff. You might as well tell me it allows for Santa Clause to provide health care. That’s surely a potential! Who knows, we might actually find Santa one day and he might bestow this upon us!
Your reading of the general welfare clause makes restraint by the rest of the Constitution IMPOSSIBLE. Surely such a rendering of that clause must explain why my government is now a Marxist totalitarian police-state.
Only after my challenge do act like there is the rest of the Constitution that might have some bearing on your claims.
The GW clause IS an end. But you treat it as a MEANS. b
The means by which Obamacare could be justified as constitutional would be if such a power was listed in the list of enumerated powers (like the power to declare war)listed right after the GW clause. And the power to provide health care or insurance is NOT listed among those powers.
Read Article One Section Eight. Do you see the power of government over health care or insurance for all citizens for the duration of their lives listed there? No? Then congress has no such power and you are blowing hot air.
Outside of that enumerated listing, congress has only a few other housekeeping powers scattered about the Constitution, but there is NO power given regarding health care like Obamacare. The 10th amendment says so. And that which is not given the feds belongs to the states and the people respectively.
Get this through your thick skull.
And no matter how confused and ignorant of the facts you remain, bringing up the Bible will not get you out of the very large hole you are digging about the Constitution. And, by the way, I’m ready to challenge you at any time (on the proper thread) about anything regarding the Bible.
Nevertheless, what you are saying (poorly) is that there is SOME kind of magical way to make Obamacare constitutional viz a viz the GW clause. But since you haven’t a clue what the Constitution means, you don’t know exactly where the “potential” to create that power lies.
The only “potential” place for Obamacare to be a power of the Federal government would be through the AMENDMENT process (and not through the GW clause as you have now claimed TWICE).
And so it is profoundly true that only way for Obamacare to become constitutional would be through the constitutionally authorized and legal process of amending the Constitution and not through some silly Santa-might-help us-some-day fiction about a mythical and magical “potential” lying fallow somewhere ONLY the GW clause. The GW justification was YOUR claim, not mine.
Not to be content with righteousness, or virtue, or justice, the Democrats have instead resorted to lawlessness and thuggery to achieve their goals for health care (and social security and so forth) by ignoring the lawful amendment process. Instead they simply crammed their illegal and morally reprehensible wishes down the rest of our throats while screaming about justice, and compassion, and how their illegal activities are constitutional. And then patting themselves on their backs.
So they just ignore the Constitution thinking the amendment process doesn’t apply to them and no one will notice what a pack of thieving thugs with criminal minds they are all.
If you actually believed what you confusedly claim: that the rest of Constitution restrains the GW clause, then you would not have used ONLY the GW clause to justify Obamacare. You did that, not me. Don’t blame me for what you did.
The general welfare clause cannot be unlinked from the enumerated powers. But that is exactly what you did. If you had indeed considered the enumerated powers in your responses to me you could have cited for me which of those powers allowed for government to seize control over the health care industry or funding. But you never did (that is because that enumerated power doesn’t exist) and you didn’t consider it, nor did you refer to it because it doesn’t exist.
James Madison (in Federalist 41) accuses you of “stooping” to a “misconstruction” by pretending the GW has in it some new construction of powers beyond what was known for it to contain in the Articles of Confederation.
Madison mocks the absurdity of the critics (ANY YOU) when he writes “But what color can the objection have, when a specification [the enumeration] of the objects [the GW clause] alluded to by these general terms [the GW clause] immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?”
The color of objection is dishonesty (or as I see it by most Democrats: stupidity or depravity).
In other words the enumerated powers are not separate from the preceding GW clause except by a pause in breath as represented by the semi-colon. Instead of keeping the words as close as possible, you put the worlds which appear after the GW clause on the other side of our galaxy.
So your claim that GW justifies Obamacare is PROOF you separated the GW clause from the enumeration and didn’t ever recognize the enumeration as having a direct bearing on the GW clause.
For if you had recognized the enumerated powers (and the Tenth Amend.) you couldn’t have arrived at your conclusions.
Madison writes in Federalist 44:
“No axiom is more clearly established in law, or in reason, than that wherever the end [the GW clause] is required, the means [the enumerated powers to achieve the ends] are authorized; wherever a general power [the GW clause] to do a thing is given, every particular power [the enumerated powers] necessary for doing it is included…If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress [and Buddha is Laughing] shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars [which Buhhda is doing], and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate the irrespective constitutional authorities.”
Madison here says that if Congress or BIL reduces the GW clause [the general power] to the status of the enumerated powers [the particulars] it would be the same as if the state legislatures should violate the powers granted the federal government.
In other words, the federal government cannot disobey the Constitution. Which is exactly what Obama and the Democratic Party is doing with Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, and a myriad other violations, tramplings, lawlessnesses, and usurpations.
If democrats want the feds to have these powers THEY MUST AMEND THE CONSTITUTION FIRST. But that is not what these thugs and thieves have done. They ignored the Constitution.
Why did they do that?
They did it because they are junkies. They are addicted to the most addictive drug known to mankind: power. They are addicted to their power to control others (and the money and connections it brings them thereby).
And for Democrats in particular, is also an orgiastic addiction to the power to enslave others by promising them the moon for their votes.
“EVERYTHING that is not specifically prohibited is allowed.”
No. Anything not against the basic function of the Constitution, reserved to states or specifically prohibited is possible. That is not the equivalent of either desirable or practical.
“By your reckoning of the general welfare clause, everything and anything under the sun could be determined to be necessary and proper and promoting general welfare such that it should be a power granted to the federal government. If the general welfare clause means what you say it means, then it would have been totally and completely unnecessary, and even utterly stupid, to have gone any further in listing the powers of government.”
See my above response.
“Your incorrect reading of the GW clause would produce UNLIMITED power.”
No. My proper reading of the general welfare language produces the potential for power as restrained by the rest of the Constitution. The only person wrong here is you. About damn near everything you open your mouth about, but especially the Constitution. You understand it even less than your precious Bible.
“They are unconstitutional as well according to all my previous comments.”
Except they aren’t. They are proper exercises of legislative power in accordance with the properly defined function of government under the Constitution. Just like instituting single-payer state run health insurance would be a proper exercise of legislative power. Insurance is a business. Government is well within their right to regulate business and provide services itself. Unless, of course, you think the Commerce Clause means something else irrational like you do other parts of the Constitution.
“you are delusional if you don’t think government is not going to profit from seizing 1/6th of the economy”
No. You are delusional if you think health care insurance constitutes 1/6th of the economy. Your confused mental state comes as no surprise. If you rolled health care insurance (the only part we are talking about socializing), hospitals (private and public), the pharmaceutical industry, the medical device industry, the medical supply industry and all the doctors and nurses up into one? That might be 1/6th of the economy. But health care insurance sure as Hell isn’t 1/6th of the economy.
“I am protecting the profits of people without nuclear bombs, tanks, and DHS gestapo storm-troopers. They are the least dangerous power brokers in this scenario. Government implies the power to kill. Thus, being a greater threat than businessmen, it should have the least amount of money because of its ability to kill.”
Uh huh. That’s just about the craziest thing you’ve ever said, Tootles. Government IS the people in a democracy . . . as long as people aren’t as so stupid as you to willingly give that power to corporations. You are protecting corporate profits, not citizens. No one is going to nuke you to keep you from getting your medical treatment.
“With private firms, I can reject medical care and leave my fate to God. And my liberty remains intact.”
Guess what? Single payer government run health care insurance would – by definition – work like insurance. The Hippocratic Oath would still apply. You could refuse treatment all you wanted for yourself. The only difference would be doctors and hospitals would be billing one entity instead of maintaining five separate paperwork channels and the profits of five different private for profit companies, drug companies would be forced to negotiate prices, and providers would be limited to what they could charge for services as opposed to the unlimited rates they can charge now which lead to ridiculous situations like $45 aspirin during a hospital stay. By eliminating inefficiencies and creating new ones, more dollars would be freed to spend on patient care instead of insurance executives bonuses and perks.
“That is exactly what the government will be doing except at the point of a gun. But the worst part is that liberty will be stripped away by law. This is YOUR preferred choice.”
Paranoid much? Psst! I got news for you sunshine. Insurance companies kill people every day by refusing coverage based on profits and not medical viability. They just kill with a pen and without a medical degree or considering the medical viability of a patients course of treatment as determined by the doctor and the patient together. Rights? You give up your right to follow your doctor’s advice to a company so they can decide what treatment you get based not upon what is both good and medically necessary for you, but on how much money it makes them to refuse. My choice is that everyone have coverage so that no one ever has to die from lack of it or go into bankruptcy to cover treatments improperly denied from a profit motive.
If the profit motive to kill is removed and monies are freed up to enhance coverage, everyone is better off. With the operational efficiencies of a single payer system? Less people would be denied critical care ergo less people would die from lack of treatment. Liberty is enhanced because all will be able to get treatment (which is not the case now despite your ignorance – 47 million, approximately 16 percent of the population, are un- or under insured) and pursue their lives without bankrupting themselves for health care. Health care which is considered a basic human right in much of the Western world, but held hostage to insurance company profits in America.
The rest of your drivel is simply that: drivel.
And I’m serious about the lithium.
You should look into it.
Because that was one of the most insane rants of yours to date.
You don’t know shit about the Constitution or about the facts surrounding health care insurance except what you’ve been spoon fed by insurance companies protecting their profits.
BIL:
I wrote:
“THERE IS NO SUCH GRANT OF POWER TO PROVIDE MEDICAL CARE TO EVERY TOM, DICK, AND MARY in America who was never in the military.”
In reply, you wrote:
“There is also no prohibition on it either nor is it reserved to the states…Oops.”
Cute, but absurd to the nth degree.
By your reckoning, if the Constitution doesn’t prohibit something then EVERYTHING that is not specifically prohibited is allowed. That is about a trillion or more things up through infinity things which would be allowed. Frankly, that is insane.
If you are right (and you are not) then there would not have have been a need to enumerate the powers of congress in the list written immediately below the GW clause, since everything could be chalked up to being necessary for the general welfare.
Your incorrect reading of the GW clause would produce UNLIMITED power. And, not only is unlimited power criminal, tyrannical, and evil, it was NEVER the intention of the founders or the framers. In fact, the entire purpose of the Federalist papers was to prove that the government was not the kind of threat you suggest.
Fortunately, the framers were wise in believing and knowing that government should not have unlimited (absolute and arbitrary) power. This is the power you suggest it has. And, I would say that it is the power you want it to have.
The Constitution is exactly opposite of what you think it is it. All power that is not specifically contained therein belongs to the states and the people. You are saying that all power not prohibited belongs to the feds. But that means a trillion plus infinity things are allowed (save for a few things it cannot do).
The constitution doesn’t say that. How do I know this? The 10th Amendment limits the trillion plus things you allow that government might do. If you ignore the 10th amendment, only then can you arrive at your incorrect conclusion. To arrive at your conclusion you have to ignore the rest of the Constitution and take the GW clause out of context.
You pretend that the General Welfare clause (and there are two of them) is the only clause in the Constitution. If you only read the General Welfare clause, and stop your reading there, are you ever to arrive at your incorrect conclusion.
You then wrote:
“As to the necessity and propriety of providing single payer state run health insurance? Read the Preamble again. Providing for posterity (in the form of healthy children) and promoting the general welfare (by securing health care for everyone instead of protecting for-profit insurance company profits) is an appropriate tax dollar expenditure.”
My reply:
You commit your first error again (at least you are consistent if not redundant).
By your reckoning of the general welfare clause, everything and anything under the sun could be determined to be necessary and proper and promoting general welfare such that it should be a power granted to the federal government. If the general welfare clause means what you say it means, then it would have been totally and completely unnecessary, and even utterly stupid, to have gone any further in listing the powers of government. If everything is necessary and proper, there was no need to enumerate specific powers. But the founders went further than the GW clause. They had to because if they stopped at it, then government would have unlimited power.
If everything is chalked up to whatever is necessary and proper to the GW, then the framers would not have had to enumerate.
The ends (establish justice, ensure tranquility, etc))of government as described in the GW clause are tied directly to the means (the enumeration of powers listed directly below the GW clause).
These means (the enumerations) are not a trillion things. The means are limited to: coining money, raising armies, establishing post offices, constituting tribunals, and about 20 more things. Two dozen or so powers are not a trillion plus infinity (as you suggest).
If the powers granted the feds are only limited by the general welfare clause (as you suggest), then you are suggesting that there is unlimited power.
The general welfare clause is a limited grant of power and a statement of ENDS tied to the MEANS (the enumeration).
You cannot get to limited power by your interpretation of the Constitution. You can only get to limited power by my interpretation.
Thus, you are completely and utterly wrong. And, I think that you wish to be.
Furthermore, the term “General Welfare and Defense” was lifted directly from the Articles of Confederation. That term had to do with paying the debts of the War of Independence. It was put into the new document ONLY because it wasn’t considered to be any new grant of power or larger power given to general government.
By your reckoning, you confer on the clause more power than the framers said it would have. So you are proven wrong by according to what the framers understood the clause meant as coming from the Articles of Confederation.
It is you who are ignorant of these things, not me.
BIL writes: “It would be no more illegal than Social Security (which is state run not-for-profit insurance), Medicare (which is state run not-for-profit insurance), Medicaid (which is state run not-for-profit insurance), the Federal National Flood Insurance Program (which is state run not-for-profit insurance), and FDIC (which is – you guessed it – state run not-for-profit insurance).”
Me: They are unconstitutional as well according to all my previous comments.
“The only lies here are the ones you keep swallowing and regurgitating, Tootles. Lies that help only one group of people. The owners and shareholders of for-profit insurance companies.”
Me: you are delusional if you don’t think government is not going to profit from seizing 1/6th of the economy. And you are delusional if you don’t think it will rob liberty from generations of Americans.
BIL:
“So tell us, Tootles. Why are you protecting the profits of people who would cut you off of life support or expensive drugs if it meant they could have another multi-million dollar spa junket?”
ME:
I am protecting the profits of people without nuclear bombs, tanks, and DHS gestapo storm-troopers. They are the least dangerous power brokers in this scenario. Government implies the power to kill. Thus, being a greater threat than businessmen, it should have the least amount of money because of its ability to kill.
And I am protecting my right to profit in the future (should I ever do that)! I am not a greedy person, so I don’t begrudge the rich their money. Greedy people hate it that rich people have money. I eschew the greedy mentality of Marxists (i.e Democrats). They are obsessed with other peoples money. This is by definition, greed. And greed is akin to the love the money, which is a root of all evil.
Therefore the reason the Democratic Party is obsessed with the money that the rich have is because they are evil.
I don’t consider rich peoples’ money my business (if they get it honestly). And, again, this is because I am not a greedy person.
If the rich get their money honestly, I have no problem with it. In your heart and mind you have tried and convicted all the rich without a trial. And you wish to punish them all for something you have not proven in a court law. And to punish them you will punish me and all other people of humble means who do not wish to be enslaved because of your unwholesome obsession with other peoples money.
Excuse me, but it is evil and wicked to punish me for something you only THINK is true about the rich but have not proven in a court of law. At the most, THEY should be punished, and not me. But your obsession has twisted your thinking so badly you no longer can think straight.
BIL:
“Why are you for privatized death panels?”
ME: With private firms, I can reject medical care and leave my fate to God. And my liberty remains intact. Why are you for government death panels, which, to participate in, I must surrender to the enslavement of state and lose my liberty to make my own choices and have the same chance of survival?
BIL:
“Because that’s what a for-profit insurance company is: a private company that can deny you coverage based solely upon profitability.”
Me: That is exactly what the government will be doing except at the point of a gun. But the worst part is that liberty will be stripped away by law. This is YOUR preferred choice.
BIL:
“And speaking of drugs, I hear lithium is really cheap. You should look into it.”
Me:
Don’t be hysterical. The poorest Americans today have greater longevity than the rich did at the time of our founding. This could not happen unless they had an overall better standard of living (including health care). The poorest Americans today have more affordable basic care available to him today than the richest Americans alive were even able to buy.
Yet, you act like that if the poor pay for even for the most basic and inexpensive tests (like perhaps xrays–unknown to the richest man at the time of our founding) that somehow this poor American is being destroyed.
The poorest American can afford the least expensive MIRACLES of modern medicine which the richest man during the founding was NEVER able to purchase. You act like the modern is worse off than the richest man of long ago. No rational person would believe it.
In other words, you have yourself so hyped up, nigh unto a frothing hysteria, about health care, that it appears you are the one who ought to seek out serious and long term medical care yourself.
You still haven’t answered the question, Tootles.
Why are you protecting the profits of people who would cut you off of life support or expensive drugs if it meant they could have another multi-million dollar spa junket? Why are you for privatized death panels? Because that’s what a for-profit insurance company is: a private company that can deny you coverage based solely upon profitability.
BONUS QUESTIONS: Would Jesus have denied Lazarus resurrection if Lazarus hadn’t been able to pay? Would he have healed the lepers and the blind if they weren’t willing to drive themselves into greater poverty to pay for his services?
Chan L
You wrote:
“It is funny to see the only argument they can put forward is greedy corporations. What else do you expect from the “Looter Class” though?”
Exactly.
False analogy.
Single payer health care insurance is not the equivalent of the SA.
Nor does that change the fact that Röhm’s left leanings and the loyalty of his men were why he was perceived as a threat. Röhm’s men, many from the working class, had bought into the vision of socialism the Goebbels used to sell Nazism to the the German people. They saw Hitler’s autocratic and authoritarian consolidation of power as a threat to that promise. Being that the SA were his power base and that socialism was the vision for a new Germany that they had followed to Röhm, that had a lot more than “very little” to do with why Röhm and his men were killed: it had everything to do with why they were killed. The appeal of socialism to the working class was part and parcel of the SA’s draw and escalating power. That the SA were still villains to the general populace had more to do with the racist and nationalist components of Nazism than their socialist leanings. Those members of the German populace most fearful and most terrorized by the SA were Jews, Roma, other foreigners and/or their sympathizers. Why? Because that’s who the SA leaned on. Why? Because they could do so without fear of reprisal. It was only when Röhm himself stepped on the toes of Franz von Papen, the conservative vice-chancellor and puppet of the industrialists – also threatened by Röhm, and von Papen’s consequent complaints at Marburg about Hitler not reigning in the SA did Hitler start to take the threat of Röhm seriously.
I know quite a bit about history. Not only is it another topic that I know more about than you? It is a topic I know in better depth than you and your distorted ideological version of history because I learned it from an ideologically neutral and factual standpoint – not as a rationalization for an ideology let alone an ideology of greed. And aside from legal history? The knowledge is largely the product of public schools – one of those social support systems you so despise – and a proclivity to read any and everything.
So you’ll just have to live with the fact this is another topic you’re out of your depth on.
“Do you even know what Hitler did to the leftist leaning Nazis within the party? I guess they don’t teach about the Night of the Long Knives at Clown College, do they? Here’s a hint: HE HAD THEM ARRESTED BY THE SS AND/OR KILLED.”
What they taught us was that Rohm was a threat to Hitler because he was in charge of the SA. The army didn’t like the SA and viewed Rohm as a threat to the Wehrmacht. It had very little to do with Roehm being to much of a socialist. Hitler was worried about power and so were Goering and Himmler.
What did they teach you at that private law school?
By the way the SA does sound like a bunch of socialists:
“The average German also feared and disliked the SA brownshirts with their arrogant, gangster-like behavior, such as extorting money from local shop owners, driving around in fancy news cars showing off, often getting drunk, beating up and even murdering innocent civilians.”
I am glad you know a little history. Not enough but a little is a good start.
Buddha,
I’m actually pretty sure that every time somebody uses “Big Brother” Orwell’s ghost scares a kitten.
It sort of peeves me that nobody bothers to read his other works. Coming Up for Air is genuinely funny, and I think Down and Out in London and Paris and Keep the Aspidistra Flying deserve a place next to Dicken’s works in chronically WHY we need social safety nets.
Also, thanks to him I know the proper way to make a cup of tea.
Gyges,
Good show.
George would be proud of you.
Blah blah blah, greed clown.
And you’re once again full of crap.
The top tax rate in Nazi Germany was 13.7%.
Compare this to Great Britain at 23.7% and the U.S. with a staggering 80% income tax and a 30% tax on capital gains.
As to the Nazis using loot taken from Jews, Roma and the developmentally disabled?
Duh.
They also plundered the art and treasuries of every country they invaded.
You are a simple creature. The name “Nationalsozialismus” (National Socialism) blinds you to the fact that Nazism was politically syncretic method (i.e. they’d tell people whatever they wanted to hear to get them to do whatever the Nazis wanted them to do regardless of what ideology they were stealing from and they took from both the left and the right) that operated in fact as a right-wing fascist military dictatorship with a racist genocidal twist. They could have called themselves “Schokoladenkuchen Partei” (Chocolate Cake Party) and they would have still been a fascist military dictatorship. A name in politics? A name palatable to the the people is the first order of propaganda business to oppressive regimes. Two words: Patriot Act. It’s an act alright, but there is nothing patriotic or Constitutional about it. Just like the National Socialists in Germany were socialists in name only.
Hitler ran a profit driven, corporatist, single-party state based on the Italian model. They were nationalistic, authoritarian, anti-democratic, anti-Parlimentarian, anti-union, anti-liberal and anti-Communist. They called their movement “socialism” because they couldn’t smear the Jews for their alleged connection to both capitalism and communism and still claim either of those labels and Hitler knew all along that he was eventually going to be fighting Stalin. They were all for making money but they were publicly opposed to capitalism based on the racist ideal that Jews controlled international finance. But the profit part? Yeah, they were all for that. Wars of aggression are particularly expensive.
The reality of Nazi Germany was this: if you were an industrialist who did what the Nazis wanted, you profited enormously. If you didn’t cooperate, you were exiled and/or your company was taken over by Nazi party members loyal to Hitler. They were fascists until it interfered with their rabid nationalism and then they acted like economic statists, but they were fascists as a normal course of business. To be clear, their business was building a nationalist war machine and crushing anyone or anything that stood in their way. Compromise was not in their vocabulary (sound familiar?). And business was good.
Do you even know what Hitler did to the leftist leaning Nazis within the party? I guess they don’t teach about the Night of the Long Knives at Clown College, do they? Here’s a hint: HE HAD THEM ARRESTED BY THE SS AND/OR KILLED.
Blather all you like, Chan.
It just further illustrates how sub-standard that education you’re so proud of really is in operation. Just like history shows the Nazis were a right-wing fascist dictatorship in operation even if they weren’t in name. Those pesky facts keep destabilizing your ideology, Chan.
That’s what happens when you ride on only one wheel and peddle with big shoes.
“Don’t lecture me about greed little looter boy. My kind of greed is only wanting to keep what I make. I dont want your money or Tooties money. But being the greedy little looter you are, you want every one’s money.”
“Like various words in the B vocabulary, duckspeak was ambivalent in meaning. Provided that the opinions which were quacked out were orthodox ones, it implied nothing but praise, and when the Times referred to one of the orators of the Party as a doubleplusgood duckspeaker it was paying a warm and valued compliment. ”
—Orwell, 1984
See folks, THAT’S how you reference 1984 .
yeah me and about everyone that understands what the Nazis and Mussollini were about.
But keep telling yourself they weren’t socialists if it makes you feel better. Only problem though is that Goebbels was one of your boys, you know looters. And he is definitely proud of you. In fact you would have been one of his little looter brown shirts taking money and property that didn’t belong to you to pass along to the state.
I bet you didn’t know that of the money used to fund the National Socialist’s war, about 40% was taken from private individuals as in all their property looted.
Don’t lecture me about greed little looter boy. My kind of greed is only wanting to keep what I make. I dont want your money or Tooties money. But being the greedy little looter you are, you want every one’s money.
Chan,
So . . . we’ve established that they teach you to make up poli sci terminology to suit your premises, how to not read English, and both American and world history that is in no way related to fact. You go ahead and keep repeating the lies they teach you at Clown College. It’s funny.
All anyone needs to do is Google the term “Nazism” to find out what a pant load you are, sport.
Goebbels would be proud that not only do you believe big lies, but that you repeat them ad nauseum.
What is the second largest department within the federal government, after the Department of Defense?
Beuller?
That’s right, it’s The United States Department of Veterans Affairs, which is distinct from the DoD. What does the VA do? It provides benefits including disability compensation, pension, education, home loans, life insurance, vocational rehabilitation, survivors’ benefits, medical benefits and burial benefits to people who are no longer active-duty military – otherwise known as “plain old citizens”.
What is Socialized Medicine? I think most people would agree that when, like the UK’s (aka “England”) National Health Service, the government owns the hospitals, and all the doctors, nurses, therapists and staff are directly employed by the government, and citizens get health care that’s primarily paid for by the government. That’s Socialized Medicine, right?
What is the VA health system? It’s a situation where the government owns the hospitals, all the doctors, nurses, etc work directly for the government, and certain selected citizens get health care that’s paid for by the government. What do you call that? Sounds like Socialized Medicine to me.
Heck, the VA system even tramples on the rights of states to regulate themselves. Ordinarily, doctors and nurses are licensed state-by-state, and must be licensed by a particular state in order to practice there. But when you work for the Socialized Medicine VA, you can be licensed by any one state and work for the VA in any other state. That’s right! An affront to Federalism! Damn big government!
What part of the US Constitution explicitly, specifically authorizes the Federal Government to build a government-owned/run national hospital system that competes with the free market to serve people who are no longer actually in the US military? None that I’m aware of.
So, where are the picketers? Why are they not out in front of every VA hospital decrying Socialized Medicine? Why are they not screaming at the tops of their lungs that they want our wounded, disabled veterans to be thrown out into the private, for-profit health care/insurance market? Hmmmm????
unfortunately truth is not on your side. Germany was a socialist state, albeit a dictatorship, in name and in reality.
Unfortunately I am not in a room where words are used exactly and proficiently. Lots of jabber but not much else.
You seem to be the head propagandist, like I said the CPUSA is more your league. You posting on a blog dedicated to civil liberties is a joke, looter boy. You deny the one true civil liberty-the right to your own life.
Good luck with that little looter boy. Maybe some day you will figure that out, what with you having a “private” “law” school education and all.
Maybe you should learn to read, Chan. Better yet, learn to understand. Germany was a socialist state in name only. That was the propaganda Goebbels used to sell fascism. Hitler modeled their economy on Mussolini’s fascist state and was indeed quite enamored with the Italian corporatism. This even caused dissent within the Nazi party as some thought that fascism was an inappropriate foreign and non-Aryan influence. It doesn’t take much research to back my assertion and discredit yours. Just some cursory reading from non-biased sources (in contrast to the Libertarian biased sources spoon fed to you at your sub-standard school).
As to the rest of your blather?
You have about as much credibility here as a monkey typing random words.
That’s what happens when you make up meanings to terms known and pull your knowledge of history out of that place you normally store your head in a room full of people who both know what words actually mean and have read more history than you. You can call me whatever. One, I’ve heard much worse from people smarter than you (which admittedly isn’t saying much) and two, I really don’t care what people who make things up, i.e. lie, say about me or much anything else.
Now peddle along, you greedy lil’ unicyclist.
Nobody thinks clowns are funny except seven year olds.
Unless, in the spirit of making up meanings for words like you do, by “funny” one means “pathetic”.